LANDMARK SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS ON INDIAN CONSTITUTION
UNION & ITS TERRITORY
In Re : The Berubari Union And Exchange of Enclaves : 1960 3 SCR 250
The Supreme Court in In Re : The Berubari Union And Exchange of Enclaves : 1960 3 SCR 250 was of the opinion that India as a sovereign country can cede part of national territory but for giving effect to any such cession Constitution has to be amended under Article 368.
In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (Writ Petition Civil No. 1099 of 2019)
The Supreme Court in In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (Writ Petition Civil No. 1099 of 2019) held that order issued by the President for abrogation of Article 370 was constitutionally valid.
CITIZENSHIP
Dr. Pradeep Jain Vs Union of India (1984) SCR (3) 942
The Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain Vs Union of India (1984) SCR (3) 942 held that there is only one domicile under Constitution of India i.e. domicile in India.
DEFINITION OF STATE
Pradeep Kumar Viswas Vs Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 3 SCR 100
The Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Viswas Vs Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (2002) 3 SCR 100 held that whether an authority is “state” under Article 12 will depend on extent of financial, functional and administrative domination or control of Government.
AMENDIBITLITY OF CONSTITUTION
Sankari Prasad Deo Vs. Union of India (1951 AIR 458)
The Supreme Court in Sankari Prasad Deo Vs. Union of India (1951 AIR 458) held that Fundamental Rights can be amended Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution. This judgment was overruled in I. C. Golak Nath Vs. State of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643) and finally culminated in “basic structure” doctrine in Keshavanand Bharati Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.
Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (1965 AIR 845 )
The Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (1965 AIR 845 ) reiterated the view taken in Sankari Prasad Deo Vs. Union of India (1951 AIR 458) that Fundamental Rights can be amended under Article 368 of the Constitution.
I. C. Golak Nath Vs State of Punjab (1967) 2 SCR 762
The Supreme Court with 6:5 majority in I. C. Golak Nath Vs State of Punjab (1967) 2 SCR 762 held that Parliament has no power to amend Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution. This judgment overruled Sankari Prasad Deo Vs Union of India (1959) SCR 89and Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan (1965) SCR (1) 933 but itself was subsequently overruled in Kesavanand Bharati Vs State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461.
Kesavanand Bharati Vs. State of Kerala (1973) Supp. 1 SCR 1
The Supreme Court by 7:6 majority in Kesavanand Bharati Vs. State of Kerala (1973) Supp. 1 SCR 1 held that basic structure of the Constitution cannot be amended by Article 368 of the Constitution.
Minerva Mills Ltd Vs Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1789)
The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills Ltd Vs Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1789) declared that Section 4 and 55 of the Constitution ( Forty Second Amendment ) Act , 1976 are void and beyond amending power of the Parliament.
I R Coelho Vs State of Tamil Nadu (1999) 7 SCC 580
The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in I R Coelho Vs State of Tamil Nadu (1999) 7 SCC 580 held that a legislation placed in Ninth Schedule after Kesavanand Bharati Vs. State of Kerala (1973) Supp. 1 SCR 1 judgment can be reviewed on the ground of violation of basic structure as reflected in Article 14, 19 and 21.
RIGHT TO EQUALITY
E. R. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 2 SCR 348
The Supreme Court in E. R. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 2 SCR 348 held that Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it could not be cribbed, cabined and confined within traditional and doctrinaire limits. Form a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies, one belongs to the rule of law in republic while other to the whims and caprices of an absolute monarch.
State of Madras Vs Shrimathi Champakam Dorairajan (1951) AIR 226
The Supreme Court in State of Madras Vs Shrimathi Champakam Dorairajan (1951) AIR 226 held that Communal Order providing reservation for different communities in educational institutions was violative of Article 29 (2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court also held that the Directive Principles of State Policy has to run subsidiary to Fundamental Rights.
M R Balaji & Ors Vs State of Mysore (1963) AIR 649
The Supreme Court in M R Balaji & Ors Vs State of Mysore (1963) AIR 649 held that special provision made under Article 15 (4) should be less than 50% . The Supreme Court also held that caste cannot be sole criteria of reservation and there cannot be sub-classification of Backward Classes.
Indra Sawhney & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors (1992) Suppl. (3) SCC
The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors (1992) Suppl. (3) SCC 217 validated the Union of India memorandums providing for reservation to the extent of 27% for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in Government jobs and had held inter alia that caste can be sole factor for providing reservation. While this judgment has been held by some as giant step towards social justice, it has also drawn criticism from some quarters like Nani Palkhiwala as a regressive judgment which will revitalize casteism and cleave the nation into forward and backward.
E. V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 1 SCC 394
The Supreme Court held in E. V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 1 SCC 394 that sub-classification under Scheduled Castes is not permissible. Subsequently this judgment has been overruled in State of Punjab Vs Davinder Singh (Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 2011).
M Nagaraj Vs Union of India (2006) Supp. (7) SCR 336
The Supreme Court in M Nagaraj Vs Union of India (2006) Supp. (7) SCR 336 held Eighty Fifth amendment of the Constitution providing reservation in promotion with consequential seniority valid. But the Supreme Court also directed that while making such provision the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance of efficiency under Article 335.
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust Vs Union of India (2014) 8SCC
The Supreme Court in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust Vs Union of India (2014) 8SCC held that Article 15 (5) of the Constitution inserted by the Constitution (Ninety Third Amendment ) Act, 2005 and Article 21A of the Constitution inserted by the Constitution (Eighty Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 are valid and does not violate basic structure of the Constitution.
Jarnail Singh Vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta ( 2018 ) 10 SCR 663
The Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh Vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta ( 2018 ) 10 SCR 663 held that collection of quantifiable data showing backwardness of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) is not required for providing reservation in promotion.
Janhit Abhiyan Vs Union of India (2022) 14 SCR 1
The Supreme Court with 3:2 majority held in Janhit Abhiyan Vs Union of India (2022) 14 SCR 1 that One Hundred and Third Amendment to the Constitution empowering the State to provide for a maximum of ten percent reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of citizens other than SC, ST and non-creamy lawyer of OBC is constitutionally valid.
State of Punjab Vs Davinder Singh (Civil Appeal No. 2317/2011)
The Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs Davinder Singh (Civil Appeal No. 2317/2011) held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes is permissible under Article 15(4) and 16 (4) of the Constitution.
Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) Supp 3 SCR 404
The Supreme Court in Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) Supp 3 SCR 404 held that sexual harassment of women at workplace violates Fundamental Right to “gender equality” and “right to life and liberty” under Articles 14, 15 and 21.
Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India (2017) 797 SCR
The Supreme Court with 3:2 majority held in Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India (2017) 797 SCR that recognition and enforcement of Triple Talaq is constitutionally invalid.
Joseph Shine Vs Union of India 2019 (3) SCC 39
The Supreme Court of India in Joseph Shine Vs Union of India 2019 (3) SCC 39 held that Section 497 IPC and Section 198 CrPC are violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It was also held that adultery should not be treated as an offence.
Indian Young Lawyers Association Vs. The State of Kerala (2018) 9 SCR 561
The Supreme Court in Indian Young Lawyers Association Vs. The State of Kerala (2018) 9 SCR 561 held that exclusion of entry of women of the age group of 10 to 50 years to Sabarimala Temple is a clear violation of the right of Hindu women to practice their religious beliefs under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
RIGHT TO FREEDOM
Romesh Thappar Vs. Union of India (1950) SCR 594
The Supreme Court in Romesh Thappar Vs. Union of India (1950) SCR 594 held that freedom of expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and such freedom is ensured by freedom of circulation.
Naveen Jindal Vs Union of India (2004) 1 SCR 1038
The Supreme Court in Naveen Jindal Vs Union of India (2004) 1 SCR 1038 held that right to fly the National Flag freely with respect and dignity is a Fundamental Right of a citizen within the meaning of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India being an expression and manifestation of his allegiance and feeling and sentiments of pride for the nation.
Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523
The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523 has declared 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 invalid on the ground that it is in violation of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
Naveen Jindal Vs Union of India (2004) 1 SCR 1038
The Supreme Court in Naveen Jindal Vs Union of India (2004) 1 SCR 1038 held that right to fly the National Flag freely with respect and dignity is a Fundamental Right of a citizen within the meaning of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India being an expression and manifestation of his allegiance and feeling and sentiments of pride for the nation.
S. Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) SCC (2) 574
The Supreme Court in S. Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) SCC (2) 574 held that open criticisms of Government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
Excel Wear Etc Vs Union of India (1979) 1 SCR 1009
The Supreme Court in Excel Wear Etc Vs Union of India (1979) 1 SCR 1009 held that the right to close business is an integral part of Fundamental Right to carry on a business.
Damyanti Naranga Vs. Union of India (1971) 3 SCR 840
The Supreme Court held in Damyanti Naranga Vs. Union of India (1971) 3 SCR 840 that right to form an association includes the right to continue the association with the membership either chosen by the founders or regulated by rules made by the association
Kharak Singh Vs State of U.P. (1964) 1 SCR 332
The Supreme Court held in Kharak Singh Vs State of U.P. (1964) 1 SCR 332 that right to “move” denotes nothing more than a right of locomotion and that in the context the adverb “freely” would only connote that the freedom to move is without restriction and is absolute.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Smt. Selvi Vs. State of Karnataka 2010 (7) SCC 263
The Supreme Court in Smt. Selvi Vs. State of Karnataka 2010 (7) SCC 263 held that involuntary Polygraph Examination, Narcoanalysis and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) during investigation of case violates Article 20 (3) of the Constitution.
RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597 )
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597 ) was one of the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court which expanded scope of Article 21 and held that procedure contemplated by Article 21 must be in conformity with Article 14. Such procedure must be right, just and fair.
Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. The Administrator, Union Territory (1981) 2 SCR 516
The Supreme Court in Francis Coralie Mullin Vs. The Administrator, Union Territory (1981) 2 SCR 516 held that right to live includes right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it.
Shantistar Builders Vs Narayan Khimalal Totame (1990)1SCC520
The Supreme Court in Shantistar Builders Vs Narayan Khimalal Totame (1990)1SCC520 held that right to reasonable residence is included in right to life under Article 21.
National Legal Services Authority Vs Union of India (2014 ) 5 SCR 119
The Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority Vs Union of India (2014 ) 5 SCR 119 inter alia issued directions for identifying Hijra and eunuchs as third gender for safeguarding their rights.
Supriyo @ Supriyo Chakraborty Vs Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 or 2022)
The Supreme Court in Supriyo @ Supriyo Chakraborty Vs Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 or 2022) held that right to marry is not a Fundamental Right recognized by Constitution of India.
Suchita Srivastava Vs. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 13 SCR 989
The Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava Vs. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 13 SCR 989 held that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of “personal liberty” as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) Vs. Union of India ( 2018) 8 SCR 1
The Supreme Court with 4: 1 majority in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) Vs. Union of India ( 2018) 8 SCR 1 (Aadhaar Judgment) held that Aadhaar Act does not create a surveillance state or violate Right to Privacy.
Husaainara Khatoon Vs State of Bihar (1979) SCR 169
The Supreme Court in Husaainara Khatoon Vs State of Bihar (1979) SCR 169 held that right to speedy trial is implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Prem Shankar Shukla Vs Delhi Administration (1980) AIR 1535
The Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Shukla Vs Delhi Administration (1980) AIR 1535 held that handcuffing a prisoner during transit between the prison house and court house violates provisions of Article 14,19 and 21.
Rudul Sah Vs State of Bihar 1983 AIR 1086
The Supreme Court in Rudul Sah Vs State of Bihar 1983 AIR 1086 held that compensation can be granted to aggrieved persons under Article 32 against violation of Fundamental Rights.
Sheela Barse Vs. State of Maharastra (1983) AIR 1978
The Supreme Court in Sheela Barse Vs. State of Maharastra (1983) AIR 1978 has held that legal aid must be made available to prisoners in jail whether they are under-trial or convicted persons.
D. K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
The Supreme Court in one of its landmark judgments D. K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 issued guidelines to be followed by police officer while making an arrest. The Supreme court also held that State is vicariously liable to pay compensation in cases of wrongful arrest.
Miss Mohini Jain Vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCR 658
The Supreme Court held in Miss Mohini Jain Vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 3 SCR 658 that right to education flows directly from right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to life and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education
Common Cause Vs Union of India (2018) 6 SCR 1
The Supreme Court in Common Cause Vs Union of India (2018) 6 SCR 1 held that right of live with dignity under Article 21 also includes the smoothening of process of dying in case of terminally ill patient or persons in Persistent Vegetative State with no hope for recovery.
Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (1991) AIR 420
The Supreme Court in Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (1991) AIR 420 held that right to live under Article 21 includes the right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Vs Union of India & Ors (1996 ) 5 SCR 241
The Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Vs Union of India & Ors (1996 ) 5 SCR 241 held that “precautionary principle” and “polluter pays principle” are part of environment law of the land.
M C Mehta Vs Union of India (1987) 1 SCR 819
The Supreme Court in M C Mehta Vs Union of India (1987) 1 SCR 819 held that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity , the enterprise shall be strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident.
M C Mehta Vs Kamal Nath (1996) Supp (10) SCR 12
The Supreme Court in M C Mehta Vs Kamal Nath (1996) Supp (10) SCR 12 declared that public trust doctrine is a part of law of the land.
Re : Noise Pollution (2005) Supp. (1) SCR 624
The Supreme Court in In Re : Noise Pollution (2005) Supp. (1) SCR 624 held that compulsorily exposing unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels is in violation of the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution free life guaranteed by Article 21.
RIGHT TO RELIGION
The Supreme Court in Bijoe Emmanuel Vs. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCR 518 held expulsion of children of Jehovah faith from school for not singing national anthem was in violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 25 (1).
S. P. Mittal Vs. Union of India (1983)1SCR 729
The Supreme Court in S. P. Mittal Vs. Union of India (1983)1SCR 729 held that Sri Aurobindo Society was not a religious denomination.
Rev. Stainislaus Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977)SCR (2) 611
The Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977)SCR (2) 611 held that there is no Fundamental Right under Article 25 to covert a person to one’s own religion.
MINORITY RIGHTS
TMA Foundation & Ors Vs. State of Karnatka & Ors (2002) SUPP 4 SCR 587
The Supreme Court in its landmark judgment TMA Foundation & Ors Vs. State of Karnatka & Ors (2002) SUPP 4 SCR 587 reiterated that linguistic and religious minorities have to be identified at state level. The Supreme Court also held inter alia that unaided minority institutions can be autonomous except regulation for maintaining academic standards and atmosphere. State aided minority institutions have to admit students of other communities, ratio of which has to be determined based on type of institution, population, and educational needs of minorities.
Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Naresh Agrawal ( Civil Appeal No. 2286 of 2006 )
The Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Naresh Agrawal ( Civil Appeal No. 2286 of 2006 ) overruled Azeez Basha Vs. Union of India 1968 SCR (1) 833 and formulated indicia for determining minority nature of an institution.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 1 SCR 678
The Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 1 SCR 678 issued several directions for curbing filing of Public Interest Litigation for extraneous considerations.
UNIFORM CIVIL CODE
Mohd Ahmad Khan Vs Shah Bano (1985) 3 SCR 844
The Supreme Court in Mohd Ahmad Khan Vs Shah Bano (1985) 3 SCR 844 emphasized the need of enactment of Uniform Civil Code under Article 44 of the Constitution.
AIIMS Students Union Vs AIIMS (2001) Supp 2 SCR 79
The Supreme Court in AIIMS Students Union Vs AIIMS (2001) Supp 2 SCR 79 held that Fundamental Duties, though not enforceable by a writ of the court, yet provide a valuable guide and aid to interpretation of constitutional and legal issues.
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur Vs State of Punjab (AIR) 1955SC549
The Supreme Court in Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur Vs State of Punjab (AIR) 1955SC549 observed that the President has been made formal or constitutional head of the Government while real executive powers are vested in ministers or the Cabinet.
PARDONING POWER OF THE PRESIDENT
Maru Ram Vs Union of India (1981) 1 SCR 1196
The Supreme Court in Maru Ram Vs Union of India (1981) 1 SCR 1196 held that powers under Article 72 or Article 161 by the President or the Governor, as the case may be, have to be exercised on the aid and advice of Council of Ministers.
Shatrughan Chauhan Vs. State of UP (2014) 1 SCR 609
The Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan Vs. State of UP (2014) 1 SCR 609 held that supervening events like delay in determination of mercy petitions, insanity of convict etc. can be grounds of commutation of death sentence.
DISQUALIFICATION OF MP
Jaya Bachchan Vs Union of India AIR (2006) SC 2119
The Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan Vs Union of India AIR (2006) SC 2119 held that for deciding the question as to whether one is holding an office of profit or not , what is relevant is whether the office is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain and not whether the person actually obtained a monetary gain
Kihoto Hollohan Vs Zachillhu 1992 1 SCR 686
The Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan Vs Zachillhu 1992 1 SCR 686 upheld the Fifty-second Amendment of the Indian Constitution whereby Tenth Schedule has been introduced in respect of disqualification of members of Parliament or Legislative Assemblies in cases of political defections. The Supreme Court also held the decision of speaker regarding disqualification is amenable to judicial review on limited grounds of violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, violation of principles of natural justice and perversity.
Subhash Desai Vs. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharastra (2023) 8 SCR 857
The Supreme Court in Subhash Desai Vs. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharastra (2023) 8 SCR 857 held that (i) Speaker is empowered to determine disqualification under 10th Schedule in the first instance , (ii) Political Party has right to issue whip, (iii) Election Commission of India (ECI) and Speaker has concurrent power to determine award of symbol and disqualification respectively (iv) Governor has wrongly called upon Mr. Uddhava Tackarey to prove confidence in the Legislative Assembly and (v) referred Nabam Rebia Vs. Deputy Speaker (2016) 8SCC 1 to larger Bench.
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES
Pandit M.S.M. Sharma Vs. Sri Krishan Sinha (1959) AIR 395
The Supreme Court in Pandit M.S.M. Sharma Vs. Sri Krishan Sinha (1959) AIR 395 held that House of Commons has right to prohibit even true and faithful reporting of proceeding of house at the time of commencement of Indian Constitution and Indian Parliament and State Legislatures have also the similar power. The Supreme Court also held that freedom of speech referred under Article 194 (1) is different from freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) and cannot be cut down in any way by any law contemplated under Article 19 (2).
Re: Keshav Singh ( Special Reference 1 of 1964)
The Supreme Court in In Re: Keshav Singh ( Special Reference 1 of 1964) held that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain Petition under Article 226 against warrant issued by the Legislative Assembly.
Raja Ram Pal Vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) (3) SCC 184
The Supreme Court in Raja Ram Pal Vs. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) (3) SCC 184held that Parliament has power and privilege under Article 105 (3) to expel a member. The Supreme Court also held that it has power of judicial review of Parliamentary Actions in case of gross illegality and violation of constitutional provisions.
The State of Kerala Vs. K. Ajith AIR 2021 SC 3954
The Supreme Court in the State of Kerala Vs. K. Ajith AIR 2021 SC 3954 held that privileges and immunities are not gateways to claim exemptions from the general law of land. particularly the criminal law, which governs the action of every citizen.
Sita Soren Vs Union of India (Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2019)
The Supreme Court in Sita Soren Vs Union of India (Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2019) overruled P. V. Narasimha Rao Vs. State 1998 4 SCC 626 and held that bribery is not immune under Article 105 (2) and the corresponding provision of Article 194.
ORDINANCE
Dr. D. C. Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar (1987) AIR 579
The Supreme Court in Dr. D. C. Wadhwa Vs. State of Bihar (1987) AIR 579 held that Governor cannot promulgate ordinance under Article 213 successively without submitting the same to Legislature.
SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India (2015) 13 SCR 1
The Supreme Court with 4:1 majority in Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India (2015) 13 SCR 1 declared Ninety Ninth Amendment and National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) Act unconstitutional.
GOVERNOR
B. P. Singhal Vs Union of India 2010 (6) SCC 331
The Supreme Court in B. P. Singhal Vs Union of India 2010 (6) SCC 331 held that Governor holds office at pleasure of the President as such President has power to remove Governor without assigning any reason and without any opportunity to show cause but such power can be exercised only for valid and compelling reasons. The Supreme Court also held that the decision to remove governor can be reviewed although on limited grounds.
State of Punjab Vs. Principal Secretary to Governor of Punjab ( Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1224/2023 )
The Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Principal Secretary to Governor of Punjab ( Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1224/2023 ) held that if the Governor withholds the assent to the Bill under Article 200, the Governor must mandatorily send the bill back for reconsideration to the State Legislature “as soon as possible”.
COLOURABLE LEGISLATION
K C Gajapati Narayan Deo Vs. State of Orissa (1954) 1 SCR 1
The Supreme Court in K C Gajapati Narayan Deo Vs. State of Orissa (1954) 1 SCR 1 held that the idea conveyed by “colorable legislation” is that although apparently a legislature in passing a statute purported to act within the limits of its powers, yet in substance and in reality, it transgressed these powers, the transgression being veiled by what appears on proper examination, to be a mere pretence or disguise
REPUGNANCY OF LAWS
Innoventive Industries Vs ICICI Bank (2018) 1 SCC 407
The Supreme Court in Innoventive Industries Vs ICICI Bank (2018) 1 SCC 407 held that provisions of Maharastra Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 are repugnant to IBC under Article 254 of the Constitution as such void to that extent. The Supreme Court also held that non-obstante clause under Section 238 IBC will override limited non-obstante clause in Maharastra Act.
INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE
Jindal Stainless Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2016) 10 SCR 1
The Supreme Court held in Jindal Stainless Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2016) 10 SCR 1 that non-discriminatory tax does not per se constitute a restriction on the right to free trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed under Article 301. The compensatory tax theory evolved in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan ) Ltd. Vs. the State of Rajasthan (1963) 1 SCR 491 has no juristic basis.
TRIBUNALS
Rojer Mathew Vs Indian Bank Ltd and Ors (2020) 6 SCC 1
The Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew Vs Indian Bank Ltd and Ors (2020) 6 SCC 1 struck down the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience, and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017. The Supreme Court referred the issue ,whether Part -XIV of Finance Act, 2017 could have been passed as money bill, to larger bench.
Madras Bar Association Vs Union of India (2020) 2 SCR 246
The Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association Vs Union of India (2020) 2 SCR 246 directed for Constitution of National Tribunals Commission. The Supreme Court also issued several directions to ensure independence of Tribunals.
ELECTION AND CRIMINALISATION OF POLITICS
Anoop Baranwal Vs Union of India (2023)9SCR1
The Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal Vs Union of India (2023)9SCR1 directed that Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners have to appointed on the recommendation of a Committee consisting of Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition of the Lok Sabha and in case no leader of Opposition is available, the leader of largest opposition party in Lok Sabha in terms of numerical strength and the Chief Justice of India.
Union of India Vs. Association of Democratic Reforms (2002) 3 SCR 696
The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Association of Democratic Reforms (2002) 3 SCR 696 directed Election Commission for seeking several information from candidates seeking election to Parliament or State Legislature on affidavit.
PRESIDENT RULE
S. R. Bommai Vs Union of India (1994) 2 SCR 644
The Supreme Court in S. R. Bommai Vs Union of India (1994) 2 SCR 644 held inter alia that imposition of the President Rule under Article 356 (1) is subject to judicial review.
