Landmark judgments are the pillars of the Indian legal system, shaping the interpretation of laws and safeguarding the rights of citizens. For AIBE XIX, understanding these judgments is critical as they frequently form the basis for questions on constitutional and procedural law. This article elaborates on 15 key judgments, explaining their context, legal principles, and significance to ensure clarity for aspirants.
Table of Contents
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Key Principle: Basic Structure Doctrine
This case arose when Kesavananda Bharati, a seer from Kerala, challenged the state’s land reform laws under Article 32, claiming they infringed his religious and property rights. The Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, but with a caveat—it cannot alter the Constitution’s basic structure. The Court defined the basic structure as including principles like secularism, democracy, the rule of law, and judicial review. This doctrine acts as a safeguard against excessive constitutional amendments that could undermine India’s democratic ethos.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Key Principle: Expanded Scope of Article 21
When Maneka Gandhi’s passport was arbitrarily impounded under the Passport Act, she argued that the action violated her right to personal liberty under Article 21. The Court ruled that “life and personal liberty” encompass the right to a fair and reasonable procedure, broadening the interpretation of Article 21. The judgment linked Articles 14, 19, and 21, emphasizing that laws must not be arbitrary and procedures must adhere to principles of natural justice.
3. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Key Principle: Sexual Harassment at Workplace
This landmark case emerged after the gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker trying to prevent child marriages. In the absence of specific laws addressing workplace sexual harassment, the Supreme Court laid down the Vishaka Guidelines, defining sexual harassment and establishing preventive measures. The guidelines remained in force until the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, making this case a prime example of judicial activism in addressing gender-based violence.
4. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Key Principle: Scope of President’s Rule
When several state governments were dismissed under Article 356, the matter was brought before the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the proclamation of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review and must be used sparingly. The Court also emphasized that secularism is a fundamental feature of the Constitution, and any action undermining it could invite judicial intervention. This case reinforced federalism and limited arbitrary dismissal of state governments.
5. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
Key Principle: Reservation Policy
Also known as the Mandal Commission Case, this judgment examined the validity of 27% reservation for OBCs in public employment. The Supreme Court upheld the reservation but excluded the creamy layer (economically advanced OBCs) and imposed a 50% ceiling on total reservations. The Court also declared that reservations cannot apply to promotions, laying the groundwork for reservation policies in India.
6. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Key Principle: Balance Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
The case arose when Minerva Mills, a textile company, challenged laws nationalizing certain industries. The Supreme Court struck down amendments that prioritized Directive Principles of State Policy over Fundamental Rights, asserting that both are essential to the Constitution. This case reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and emphasized that no single constitutional provision can be given absolute precedence.
7. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Key Principle: Procedure Established by Law
This was one of the first cases to interpret Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Gopalan, a communist leader, challenged his preventive detention, arguing it violated his rights. The Court upheld the detention, emphasizing the phrase “procedure established by law,” meaning laws passed by the legislature are sufficient to curtail liberty. This restrictive interpretation was later overturned in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where procedural fairness was introduced.
8. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Key Principle: Custodial Safeguards
The case began with a letter highlighting custodial torture and deaths, which the Court treated as a writ petition. The judgment laid down 11 guidelines, including mandatory medical examinations of detainees, informing relatives about arrests, and producing detainees before a magistrate within 24 hours.
9. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
Key Principle: Right to Speedy Trial
This case exposed the plight of thousands of undertrial prisoners languishing in Bihar’s jails, some for periods longer than the maximum sentence for their offenses. The Supreme Court declared speedy trial a fundamental right under Article 21 and directed the government to release undertrial prisoners detained for unreasonable durations.
10. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
Key Principle: Constitutional Amendments and Fundamental Rights
The Golaknath family challenged the Punjab Land Reforms Act, claiming it violated their property rights. The Court ruled that fundamental rights cannot be amended, restricting Parliament’s amending power under Article 368. This decision was later modified by Kesavananda Bharati, which introduced the basic structure doctrine.
11. Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903)
Key Principle: Minor’s Capacity to Contract
In this Privy Council case, the Court held that a contract with a minor is void ab initio, meaning it cannot be enforced under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The judgment clarified that minors are not legally competent to contract, protecting them from exploitation.
12. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Key Principle: Freedom of Speech and Expression
The case arose from challenges to Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized “offensive” online content. The Court struck down the provision, deeming it unconstitutional as it violated Article 19(1)(a) by being vague and overbroad. This case reaffirmed the importance of free speech in a digital era.
13. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Key Principle: Right to Privacy
This landmark judgment declared the right to privacy a fundamental right under Article 21. It arose in the context of Aadhaar’s mandatory linking to various services, shaping future legislation on data protection and surveillance.
14. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
Key Principle: Environmental Responsibility
The Court held industries accountable for environmental pollution under the polluter pays principle. It established absolute liability for harm caused by hazardous industries, laying the foundation for environmental jurisprudence in India.
15. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)
Key Principle: Federalism and Judicial Review
This case arose when opposition-ruled states were threatened with dismissal by the central government. The Court reinforced that the federal structure of the Constitution cannot be compromised and limited the arbitrary use of Article 356.
Conclusion
Understanding these judgments and their legal principles will not only help you ace AIBE XIX but also strengthen your foundation in Indian law. Each case is a testament to how the judiciary interprets and upholds the Constitution, ensuring justice and fairness for all.
Good luck with your preparation!
All efforts are made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published at Legally Flawless. However, Legally Flawless shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to oversight or otherwise. The users are advised to check the information themselves.
