Important SC Judgements

 

1. A. K. Gopalan case 1950

Protection under Article 21 is available only against arbitrary executive action and not from arbitrary legislative action based on expression Procedure established by law(under Art 21) 

Life= mere existence

2. Champakam Dorairajan case 1951

Directive Principles have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights. But, it also held that the Fundamental Rights could be amended by the Parliament by enacting constitutional amendment acts. As a result parliament enacted 1st amendment Act. 

3. Shankari Prasad case 1951

Challenged 1st Amendment Act 1951.

Power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights. As law under Article 13 include only ordinary law and not the Constitution amendment act

4. Berubari case 1960

Preamble is key to the minds of the makers of the Constitution. 

But preamble is not part of Indian Constitution. 

5. Golakhnath case 1967

Fundamentals right cannot be amended. Constitutional amendment is part of law under Article 13.

In response GoI introduced 24th and 25th amendment Act in 1971.

24th Amendment Act- added 13(4) and according to it Constitutional amendment is not part law under Article 13.

6. R. S. Cooper case 1970

President decision regarding Ordinance can be challenged on the ground that immediate action was not required. 

7. Keshvanand Bharti case 1973

Court accepted the constitutionality of Art 13(4), but introduced the doctrine of basic structure. Thus Judcial review regarding amendment in Fundamental rights is possible. 

In response to this 42nd Amendment Act 1976 was introduced. 

Added 368(4)- No court can challenge any constitutional amendment act and

 368(5)- Parliament can amend any part of Constitution. 

8. Maneka Gandhi case 1978

Procedure established by law(under Art 21) also includes Due Process of Law. Change the interpretation of Procedure established by law given in AK Gopalan case 1950

Life= complete, beautiful and worthy life

9. Minerva Mill case 1980

Strike a balance between Fundamental rights and DPSP. 

Only 39(b) and 39(c) has upper hand over fundamental right 14 and 19. Not all DPSP as the 42nd amendment tried to do. 

SC struck down 368(4) and 368(5) 

Basic structure was elaborated

10. M. C. Mehta case 1986

Strict liability principles  →   absolute liability principle(In environmental law) 

11. D. C. Wadhwa case 1987

Ordinance should be used in exceptional circumstances and not as a substitute.

12. Kihoto Hollohan 1992

With regard to 52nd Amendment act(10th schedule). Speaker’s decision was subject to judicial review as he acted as a tribunal while deciding cases under the anti-defection law. 

Judicial review cannot be available at a stage prior to the making of a decision by the Speaker/Chairman. Nor would interference be permissible at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings.

13. S. R. Bommai case 1994

The case was related to president rule under article 356. This case put restrictions on the centre for imposing the President’s Rule on states. And gave verdict that Judicial review was applicable on imposition of President rule. 

Judicial review is applicable to Ordinance. 

Secularism, federalism are part of basic structure. 

14. Godavarman vs Union of India 1995

The judgement extended protection to all areas with natural forests irrespective of their ownership. It laid down that forests will be understood by its dictionary meaning, and the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, shall apply to all thickly wooded areas.

It was branded by commercial entities as Judicial activism. 

 

15. IR Coelho Case(9th schedule case) 2007

Judicial review is part of basic structure of the Constitution. Inserting any law in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution would not protect it from judicial review. 

16. Lily Thomas vs Union of India 2013

The Supreme Court declared Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act 1951, which allowed legislators a 3 month window to appeal against their conviction thus delaying their disqualification until such appeals were exhausted, as unconstitutional. 

Immediate disqualification of MPs/MLAs if convicted. 

17. Shreya Singhal vs Union of India 2015

Supreme Court struck down the section 66A of IT act 2000, as it violated the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19.

Section 66A defines the punishment for sending offensive messages through a computer or any electronic devices. The section failed to define the term offensive message. 

18. Shayara Bano case 2017

Instant Triple talaq or talaq-e-biddat is unconstitutional and illegal.

 

Three Judge Cases

1. First Judge Case(1981)- CJI advice is only consultation and not binding on executive

2. Second Judge Case(1993)- SC reversed it earlier decision. Consultation menas concurrence i.e. advice is binding in nature

Collegium system- CJI + 2 other judges

3. Third Judge Case(1998)- Expended the collegium system

Collegium system- CJI + 4 other judges

In 2014 GoI introduced NJAC act. 

2015- SC scrapped the NJAC act and collegium system was restored.