LANDMARK JUDGMENTS OF…
Minerva Mills V. Union Of India
Supreme Court had struck down
Section 55 & 4 of the 42nd Amendment because it violated
the basic structure doctrine. The Court emphasized on the importance of
judicial review and held that Section 55 of the amendment act 1976 is void
because it made the challenge in Court not possible and removed all
restrictions on the Parliament's power under Article 368.
S.R Bomai V. Union Of India
Supreme Court held that the
President's power to dismiss a State Government is not absolute. The power
should be exercised by the President only after both the Houses approve his
proclamation. Till then, he can only suspend the Constitutional provisions
thereby suspending Legislative Assembly.
L. Chandra V. Union Of India
Supreme Court concluded
that the Tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B have the power
to test vires of subordinate legislation except vires of their parent statutes.
All its decisions would be subject to scrutiny before Division Bench of their
respective High Courts under Articles 226/227. No appeal would lie directly to
the Supreme Court under Article 136. The said direction would operative
Maneka Gandhi V. Union Of India
This judgment expanded the scope of
Article 21 of the Constitution and made India a welfare State. The major
findings of the judgment are as follows:
court while delivering this landmark judgment changed the landscape of the
Constitution by holding that though the phrase used in Article 21 is “procedure
established by law” instead of “due process of law” however, the
procedure must be free from arbitrariness and irrationality.
though the Constitution makers must be respected, but they never intended to
plant such a self – destructive bomb in the heart if the Constitution. They
were never of the mind that the procedure need not necessarily be reasonable,
just and fair. They drafted this Constitution for the protection of the “people
of India” and such interpretation of Article 21 will be counter-productive
to the protection offered by the Constitution.
scope of “personal liberty” is not be construed in narrow and stricter
sense. The court said that personal liberty has to be understood in the broader
and liberal sense. Therefore, Article 21 was given an expansive interpretation.
The court obligated the future courts to expand the horizons of Article 21 to
cover all the Fundamental Rights and avoid construing it in narrower sense.
10(3)(c) of Passport Act 1967 is not violative of either Article 21 nor Article
19(1)(a) or 19 (1)(g). The court further held that the said 1967 provision also
not in contradiction of Article 14. Since the said provision provides for an
opportunity to be heard. The court rejected the contention of petitioner that
the phrase “in the interests of the general public” is not vague.
Danial Latifi V. Union Of India
Supreme Court held that while
divorce, the husband has a duty to consider his wife's future needs and make required
arrangements well in advance so that those need could be met. This case
established the Muslim husband's liability for facilitating maintenance to his
wife even after divorce. The period included is that beyond the iddat period.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum V.
Union Of India
Supreme Court observed that one of
the major foreign exchange earner was the leather industry. Among others,
'precautionary principle' and 'polluter pay principle' are the important
environmental measures to be taken by the State thus anticipating, preventing
and attacking the causes of environmental degradation.
S.P. Gupta V. Union Of India
In this case, the Apex Court
observed that the President's actions can only be challenged only when there is
apprehension of mala fide intention on part of him or
Dk Basu V. State Of West Bengal
The Court gave certain guidelines
regarding the rights and duties of arrested persons and arresting police
official. These are:
police official who arrests and handles the interrogation of the arrested
person must wear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with
their designations. A register has to be maintained in which particulars of all
such personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee will be recorded.
memo of the arrest has to be prepared by such official at the time of arrest.
Such memo shall have to be attested by at least 1 witness. He can be a family
member of the arrested person or even a respectable person from the locality
(area of arrest). The arrestee will countersigned by the arrestee.
to inform Near ones about arrest: The arrestee must be given a
chance to inform someone about his arrest or detention, as a matter of right.
case diary has to be maintained at the place of detention. It should contain
details of the arrestee, the name of the person to whom he has informed
about his arrest or detention and the details of the police official who has
given effect to that arrest.
the informed person lives outside the district or town, the police is obligated
to give them details regarding time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an
arrestee. This can be done through the Legal Aid Organization in the District
and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within period of 8
to 12 hours after the arrest.
the arrestee requests, he can be examined while being arrested. If any
injuries, minor or major, are found on his body, it must be recorded at that
time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the police
officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
to get medical facilities: The arrested person has to be medically
examined by a trained doctor every 48 hours when he is detained
to Consult Advocate: The arrestee should not be stopped to met his
Advocate during interrogation.
Kharak Singh Case
Supreme Court held that “It
is essential for us to determine whether there is a fundamental right to
privacy in the Indian Constitution. Determination of the question would
essentially entail whether the decisions in M P Sharma by an eight-judge Bench
and Kharak Singh by a six-judge Bench that there is no such fundamental right
is the correct expression of constitutional provisions,”
Sodan Singh V. NDMC
Supreme Court had considered the
Thareja Committee's report and concluded that the occupation and places which
were decided by the Committee is tentative. The Court noted its recommendation
that in case the dues are not paid, the claimant shall not be entitled to the
benefit under this scheme. Certain procedures were directed to make final
allotment of sites to the eligible squatters.
Naga's Peoples Movement For Human
Rights V. Union Of India
The Supreme Court said that for any
area to be declared as a disturbed one, a grave situation of law and order must
exist on the basis of which the Governor/Administrator of the State/Union
Territory or the Central Government can form an opinion that area is in such a
disturbed or dangerous.
M. Nagaraj V. Union Of India
The constitutional validity of 77th,
81st, 82nd, and 85th Amendments were upheld by Supreme Court. It held that if
the State wants to exercise their discretion and make provisions for
reservation to promote SC/STs, quantifiable data showing backwardness of the
class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in
addition to compliance of Article 335 has to be collected.
State Of Karnataka
The Supreme Court reiterated on
Article 20(3) as follows:
“Article 20 (3) aims to
prevent the forcible conveyance of personal knowledge that is relevant to the
facts in issue. The results obtained from each of the impugned tests bear a
testimonial character and they cannot be categorised as material evidence.
In their considered opinion that
subjecting a person to the impugned techniques in an involuntary manner
violates the prescribed boundaries of privacy.”
Society For Un-Aided Private Schools Of Rajasthan V.
Union Of India And Anr.
Supreme Court bench comprising of
Chief Justice SH Kapadia and Justices Swatanter Kumar and Justice KS
Radhakrishnan upheld the constitutionality of the RTE Act. It held that under
that Article 19(6) it was permitted to impose reasonable restrictions on the
right to carry on an occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1)(g).
Also, 25% reservation obligation on private unaided schools was a reasonable
restriction. It was also held that Section 12(1)(c) of the Act requiring
unaided minority schools to admit children from disadvantaged groups violated
the minority character of those institutions and hence, the RTE Act could not
be applied to private unaided minority schools.
D.S. Nakara V. Union Of India
Supreme Court had observed that:
"With the expanding horizons of
socio-economic justice and the classification being not based on any
discernible rational principle having been found wholly unrelated to the
objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalized pension, it could be
safely said that this differential treatment is violative of Article 14 and
unconstitutional. The classification must not be arbitrary but must be
rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or
characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and
not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have
a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. Also, Article 14 is
certainly attracted where equals are treated differently without any reasonable
Nandini Sundar V. State Of
supreme court addresses the issue
of ill-treatment, torture, murder, and forced displacement suffered by
local people. The Court reaffirmed that these actions on part of the State are
unconstitutional and ordered the State to strictly abide by the rule of
law. For this, orders were passed to stop SPOs with immediate effect to stop them
from funding the other vigilante groups' recruitment.
Swamy Shraddananda V. State Of
The Apex Court had held that if the
Court has good reasons to substitute death sentence by life imprisonment or by
a period of 14 years, it can direct the convict to not be released from jail
for the rest of his life or for the actual term as specified in the order, as
the case may be.
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh &
Anr V/s State of Gujarat & Ors
The Supreme Court bench raised vital
questions with regards to the roles of various bodies like Court, Investigating
agencies, Public Prosecutors etc. in a criminal proceeding. When the State
prosecutes the State itself, there arises a major concern of State-sanctioned
and sponsored criminal bouts of communal violence. It extends to every officer
of the prosecuting State undertaking every effort to ensure the acquittal of
accused officers of the State.
Hollohon v. Zachilhu and ors.
The Supreme Court considered the
52nd Amendment to the Constitution and held that it violated the whole
Constitution as the Constitutional scheme for decisions on questions on
disqualification of members after being duly elected, contemplates adjudication
of such disputes by an independent authority outside the House, namely
President or Governor in accordance with the opinion of the Election
Commission, all of which who high Constitutional functionaries are.
Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union Of India
The Apex Court considered the
principle of parens patriae, It prevented any misuse by determining
termination of life of a person in High Court. Thus, passive euthanasia was
allowed by the Court in some cases. But even for this, the approval has to be
taken from the concerned High Court and proper procedure is to be followed.