[Enter Post Title Here]

Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State Of Delhi 1950

Freedom of press is inherent

A K Gopalan case of 1950:

preventive detention of communist leader A K Gopalan,
The issue was whether somebody's detention could be justified
merely on the ground that it had been carried out "according to
the procedure established by law," as stipulated in Article 21
of the Constitution.
the Supreme Court, taking a narrow view of Article 21, refused to
consider if the procedure established by law suffered from any
deficiencies.

In the Champakam Dorairajan case of 1951, the Supreme

Court slammed caste-based reservations as a violation of the
Constitutional prohibition of discrimination.
FR over the DPSP.

Shankari Prasad case of 1951,

 it ruled that since no limits had been spelt out in Article 368, the
power to amend the Constitution included abridgement of even
fundamental rights.
AR 13 definition of law does not include CA

K.M. Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra (1959)

This case was the last time there was a jury trial in India. KM
Nanavati, a naval officer, murdered his wife's lover, Prem Ahuja.

Berubari case (1960)

preamble was not an integral part of The Constitution was
declared by the Supreme Court of India in Berubari case therefore
it is not enforceable in a court of law.
M R Balaji v Mysore AIR 1963
Court put 50% cap on reservations
Caste cannot be main criteria for reservations

Golaknath v. State of Punjab 1967,

Since Article 13 stipulated that every law enacted by
Parliament had to comply with fundamental rights,
constitutional amendments as well.
It held that Fundamental Rights included in Part III of the
Constitution are given a "transcendental position" and are beyond
the reach of Parliament. It also declared any amendment that
"takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part
III as unconstitutional

Madhav Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India (Or the Privy

purses case) (Constitutional Law) 1970

In this case, the Presidential orders cancelling the privy purses,

titles and other privileges of the erstwhile princely states was
challenged. The Supreme Court upheld the abolition of privy
purses.
 Mathura Rape Case (1972) - submission does not mean
consent.

Kesavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala 1973

Justice H.R. Khanna writing the most important part of the
judgment (the doctrine) as the last paragraph
Preamble is part of the constitution

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975

Basic Features to the list of basic features laid down in
Keshavanandas Case. These are
1. Rule of Law, Equality before Law.
2. Democracy, that implies free and fair elections
3. Judicial Review
4. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32.

The 1975 ADM Jabalpur Case, also known as the habeas corpus
case, is debatably most controversial decision of Supreme Court,
where a constitutional bench unabashedly declared that under
emergency provisions no one could seek the assistance of any
court in India to try and save his liberty, life or limb threatened to
be taken away by the State.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978

Maneka Gandhi challenged the impounding of her passport and
Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to life and personal liberty)
was interpreted most dynamically by the Judiciary.

Due process of Law

The SC opined upon the inter-connection between Articles. 14

(equality), 19 (freedoms) and 21.

Article 21 has been interpreted in a very dynamic fashion by the

Supreme Court to include a plethora of rights not specifically
mentioned in the Indian Constitution. It is like an umbrella of
rights today.

a) Right to livelihood
b) Right of a speedy trial
c) Right against handcuffing
d) Right to health
e) Right to shelter
f) Right to free legal aid
g) Right to pollution free water and air
h) Right to privacy

Hargovind pant vs Raghukul tilak 1979

governor is independent cons head and not bound to act in
discretion of UG.

Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. 1980
every constitutional ammendment shall be under judicial
review. (null & void - 4 & 5 secs of 42 CA )
The SC also modified the article 31C to its original position stating
that not all DPSPs but only article 39(b) and 39(c) of the
DPSPs shall be considered above FRs ( i.e only art.14 & 19
not all FRs).
The Supreme Court also held that the balance between Part III
and Part IV is in itself part of the basic structure of the
Constitution and hence any Amendment which gives superiority
of one over the other is beyond the competence of the
Parliament.

Krishna Singh Vs Mathura Ahir, 1980 :

Part III of the Constitution does not touch upon the personal laws
of the parties.

Waman Rao & Ors V. Union Of India & Ors 1981

The supreme court held that all amendment to the constitution
which were made before April 24th, 1973 were valid and
constitutional.

S.P. Gupta v. President of India 1982 : first judges case:

Judges' Transfer case
CJI opinion is not binding on president regarding appointment of
judges.
right to information as being included in rights to freedom of
speech and expression.
PIL - by Former CJI P.N. Bhagwati
Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum (1985)

MC Mehta v Union Of India - 1986

Mounting environment-related concerns.
A PIL filed by MC Mehta in 1986 enlarged the scope and ambit of
Article 21 and Article 32 to include the right to healthy and
pollution-free environment.

In Bijoe Emanuel vs State of Kerala (1986) , SC held that not

showing respect to National Anthem is not crime .

The Supreme Court addressed it in D. C. Wadhwa v. State of

Bihar (1986), when it held that it is unconstitutional to
repromulgate ordinances, unless in exceptional
circumstances.

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Maruty Shripati

Dubal,[i] the contention was that Section 309 of the Indian
Penal Code was unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 19
and 21. It was held in this case by the Bombay high court that
right to life also includes right to die and section 309 was
struck down. The court clearly said in this case that right to die is
not unnatural; it is just uncommon and abnormal. In the case
of P.Rathinam v. Union of India,[ii] it was held that the scope of
Article 21 includes the right to die.
Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar (1991)
The SC held that the Right to Life is a Fundamental Right
under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right to
the enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of
life.

Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (Constitutional Law) 1992

Indira Sawhney case (Manadal Judgement)
He challenged the govt decision in supreme court on familiar
grounds of equality and non-discrimination
9 judge bench sat in judgement and decided-
1. 27% reservation valid but will not apply to creamy layer.
2. 10% quota for Economically weaker section invalid.
Why?
No constitutional provision of reservation solely on economic
grounds
Purpose of reservation is to uplift historically disadvantaged
groups not to eradicate poverty
Reservation in promotion invalid

Constitute National Commission for Backward Classes

(NCBC) for inclusion and exclusion in the list of OBCs.
Not to exceed 50%
Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu And Others 1992 :
JR in Anti defection law

Unni Krishnan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993

Origin of fundamental right to education
In giving such an interpretation of the Constitution, the apex court
has only followed the same principles laid down 1986 in the Olga
Tellis v. Bombay Muncipal Corporation case; that the Right to
Life was not restricted to animal existence and that it had to
be a life with human dignity.

Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association vs Union

of India 1993 Second Judges Case
created the collegium system
SC ruled that the senior most will be the CJI.

S. R. BOMMAI V. UNION OF INDIA 1994

proclamation under Article 356 is not immune from judicial
review
Secularism is one of the basic features of the Constitution
Third Judges Case of 1998
not a case but an opinion delivered by the Supreme Court of India
responding to a question of law regarding the collegium system,
raised by then President of India K. R. Narayanan, in July
1998 under his constitutional powers.

Vishakha and Others vs. State of Rajasthan (1997)

Before the Vishakha Guidelines came in, the workplace was
dangerous for many women especially in case of sexual
harassment. In 1992, Bhanwari Devi was gang-raped by upper
caste men in her village because she tried to raise her voice
against child-marriage. Due to gross negligence, the vaginal
swabs collected from her body were taken 48 hours after the
incident. Ideally, it should be done so within 24 hours. Shockingly,
the judge presiding over her case (this was the seventh judge
after six others were removed) acquitted the accused, even going
so far to say, " Since the offenders were upper-caste men and
included a brahmin, the rape could not have taken place because
Bhanwari was from a lower caste. " Following the outrage over
this acquittal, Vishakha and some other women's groups filed a
PIL against the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India, forcing
the latter to adopt the Vishakha Guidelines which now protects
working women all over the country

Tamil Nadu Vs Suhas Katti (2004)

What: The first case involving conviction under the Information
Technology Act, 2000, related to the posting of obscene messages
on the Internet.

PA Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005)

Reservations for SC,ST in private educational institutions as null
and void.

I.R COELHO vs SO TN 2007 :

JR applicable to 9th schedule laws before K case .

B P singhal vs union of india 2010 :

Change of UG cannot be reason for removal of governor

NOTA (2013) Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of

India (NOTA case)
What: Right to negative vote.

The Naz foundation case Section 377 (2013)

What: Criminalisation of unnatural sex which includes gay sex,
sex with animals, sex with minors and fellatio.

Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013)

What: Any Member of Parliament (MP), Member of the Legislative
Assembly (MLA) or Member of a Legislative Council (MLC) who is
convicted of a crime with more than two year sentence, will be
disqualified as an elected representative on the date of
conviction.

NALSA vs Union of India (2014)

This is the landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India which
declared that Transgendered People were the 'third gender' and
that they had equal rights as any other gender. The petitioner in
this case was the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).

In 2015 :

Section 66A IT Act struck down [Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India]

States cannot unilaterally grant remission [Union of India vs.

Sriharan]

Minimum Edu Qualification rule for Panchayat elections upheld

[Rajbala vs. State of Haryana]

RBI also under RTI [Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal Mistry]

Acid Attack Victims in disability list [Parivartan Kendra vs. Union of

India]

No politician photos in Govt Ads [Common cause vs. Union of

India]

Jat reservation unconstitutional [Ram Singh vs. Union of India]

Concealing pending criminal cases by elected representative
illegal [Krishnamoorthy vs. Sivakumar]

Law giving equal right to daughters prospective [Prakash vs.

Phulavati ]

Shyam Narayan Chouksey case 2016 :

National Anthem issue