The Indian Constitution is a living document, and its evolution owes much to the interpretative role of the Supreme Court. Through several landmark judgments, the Judiciary has defined the limits of Parliamentary power, protected Fundamental Rights, and ensured the survival of democratic values.
The Evolution of Parliamentary Power vs. Fundamental Rights #
| Case | Year | Key Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad v. Union of India | 1951 | Ruled that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368. |
| Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan | 1965 | Reaffirmed the position in Shankari Prasad. |
| Golaknath v. State of Punjab | 1967 | Reversed previous stands; ruled that Fundamental Rights are “transcendental” and cannot be amended by Parliament. |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | 1973 | The most famous case. It overruled Golaknath and introduced the “Basic Structure Doctrine.” |
| Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain | 1975 | Applied the Basic Structure doctrine to strike down a constitutional amendment that placed the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial review. |
| Minerva Mills v. Union of India | 1980 | Held that limited amending power and harmony between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs are part of the Basic Structure. |
| Waman Rao v. Union of India | 1981 | Drew the line of 24 April 1973; Ninth Schedule laws inserted after Kesavananda can be tested against Basic Structure. |
| I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu | 2007 | Held that Ninth Schedule laws are open to judicial review if they damage Basic Structure. |
The Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973) #
The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its “Basic Structure.”
Elements of Basic Structure include:
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Republican and Democratic form of Government
- Secular character of the Constitution
- Separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary
- Federal character of the Constitution
- Judicial Review
- Free and fair elections
- Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) #
The Court struck down provisions that gave unlimited amending power to Parliament. It held that:
- Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited.
- Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy is part of the Basic Structure.
- Judicial Review cannot be destroyed by constitutional amendment.
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) #
The Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment are not automatically protected. If such laws violate Fundamental Rights in a way that damages the Basic Structure, courts can review them.
Expansion of Article 21 (Life and Liberty) #
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) #
The Court took a narrow view of Article 21, stating that “procedure established by law” meant any law passed by the legislature, regardless of whether it was just or fair.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) #
The Court departed from the narrow approach of Gopalan. It established that any “procedure” must be “just, fair, and reasonable” (introducing the concept of Substantive Due Process). It also ruled that Articles 14, 19, and 21 form a “Golden Triangle” and are interconnected.
3. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) #
A 9-judge bench unanimously declared the Right to Privacy as an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21.
4. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) #
Recognized the Right to Die with Dignity as part of Article 21 and permitted passive euthanasia through advance medical directives, subject to safeguards.
Civil Liberties, Criminal Justice and Human Dignity #
| Case | Year | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla | 1976 | Held during Emergency that habeas corpus could be suspended; later widely criticized and effectively overruled by later constitutional developments. |
| Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar | 1979 | Recognized the right to speedy trial as part of Article 21. |
| Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration | 1978/1980 | Protected prisoners against cruel and inhuman treatment. |
| D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal | 1997 | Laid down safeguards against custodial violence and illegal arrest. |
| Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra | 2002 | Evolved the concept of Curative Petition after dismissal of a review petition. |
Social Justice and Reservations #
1. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) #
Also known as the Mandal Commission Case.
- Upheld 27% reservation for OBCs.
- Introduced the concept of the “Creamy Layer.”
- Ruled that total reservations should not exceed 50%, except in extraordinary situations.
2. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) #
The Court laid down the “Vishaka Guidelines” to address sexual harassment of women at workplaces, filling a legislative vacuum until the POSH Act was passed in 2013.
3. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) #
Upheld constitutional amendments enabling reservation in promotions for SCs and STs, but required the State to consider backwardness, inadequate representation, and administrative efficiency.
4. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) #
Modified the Nagaraj position by holding that States need not collect quantifiable data to prove backwardness of SCs and STs for reservation in promotion.
5. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) #
Upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment providing 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
Women, Gender Justice and Bodily Autonomy #
| Case | Year | Key Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India | 1979 | Questioned discriminatory service rules against women in the Indian Foreign Service. |
| Air India v. Nergesh Meerza | 1981 | Struck down service conditions that discriminated against air hostesses on grounds such as pregnancy. |
| Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum | 1985 | Recognized the right of a divorced Muslim woman to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. |
| Mary Roy v. State of Kerala | 1986 | Secured equal inheritance rights for Syrian Christian women under the Indian Succession Act. |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan | 1997 | Laid down workplace sexual harassment guidelines under Articles 14, 19 and 21. |
| Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India | 1999 | Interpreted guardianship law to recognize the mother as a natural guardian. |
| Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh | 2006 | Protected the right of adult women to marry a person of their choice. |
| Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration | 2009 | Recognized reproductive autonomy as part of personal liberty under Article 21. |
| Laxmi v. Union of India | 2014 | Led to stronger regulation of acid sale and compensation/rehabilitation measures for acid attack survivors. |
| Shayara Bano v. Union of India | 2017 | Declared instant triple talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat) unconstitutional. |
| Independent Thought v. Union of India | 2017 | Read down the marital rape exception for wives between 15 and 18 years of age. |
| Joseph Shine v. Union of India | 2018 | Decriminalized adultery and rejected the idea of women as property of husbands. |
| Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala | 2018 | Allowed entry of women of menstruating age into Sabarimala temple; linked equality, dignity and religious freedom. |
| Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya | 2020 | Directed permanent commission for women officers in the Army. |
| Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma | 2020 | Affirmed equal coparcenary rights of daughters in Hindu joint family property. |
| X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department | 2022 | Extended abortion access under the MTP framework to unmarried women as well. |
Federalism and Secularism #
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) #
This judgment curbed the arbitrary use of Article 356 (President’s Rule).
- Ruled that the power of the President to dismiss a State government is not absolute.
- Established that the floor of the Assembly is the only place to test the majority of a government.
- Declared Secularism as part of the Basic Structure.
In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023) #
The Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of Article 370 and the reorganization of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir. The judgment is important for debates on federalism, asymmetric federalism, President’s Rule and the constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir.
Judicial Review and Judicial Independence #
| Case | Year | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| S.P. Gupta v. Union of India | 1981 | First Judges Case; gave primacy to the executive in judicial appointments. |
| Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India | 1993 | Second Judges Case; established the Collegium system and gave primacy to the judiciary. |
| In re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 | 1998 | Third Judges Case; clarified the Collegium consultation process. |
| L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India | 1997 | Held that judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court is part of the Basic Structure. |
| Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India | 2015 | Fourth Judges/NJAC Case; struck down the NJAC Act and 99th Constitutional Amendment. |
Democracy, Elections and Free Speech #
| Case | Year | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras | 1950 | Early free speech case; held that freedom of speech is foundational to democracy. |
| Bennett Coleman v. Union of India | 1973 | Protected press freedom against excessive State control. |
| People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India | 2003 | Recognized the voter’s right to know candidate information as part of Article 19(1)(a). |
| People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India | 2013 | Upheld the right of voters to choose NOTA. |
| Shreya Singhal v. Union of India | 2015 | Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for violating free speech. |
| Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India | 2020 | Held that internet restrictions must satisfy legality, necessity and proportionality. |
| Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India | 2024 | Struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme for violating voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a). |
Recent Significant Judgments #
| Case | Subject | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) | Triple Talaq | Declared the practice of Talaq-e-Biddat unconstitutional. |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) | Section 377 | Decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults. |
| Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) | Adultery | Struck down Section 497 of the IPC, stating it treated women as property of husbands. |
| Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) | EWS Reservation | Upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment providing 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections. |
| Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) | Same-sex marriage | Declined to recognize a fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples, but discussed dignity, equality and queer rights. |
| In Re: Article 370 (2023) | Jammu and Kashmir | Upheld the abrogation of Article 370. |
| Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024) | Electoral Bonds | Struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme and emphasized political transparency. |
Summary Table for Quick Revision #
| Doctrine/Concept | Landmark Case |
|---|---|
| Basic Structure | Kesavananda Bharati (1973) |
| Judicial Review | Minerva Mills (1980) |
| Ninth Schedule Review | I.R. Coelho (2007) |
| Right to Privacy | K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) |
| Due Process of Law | Maneka Gandhi (1978) |
| Right to Speedy Trial | Hussainara Khatoon (1979) |
| Custodial Safeguards | D.K. Basu (1997) |
| Rule of 50% Reservation | Indra Sawhney (1992) |
| Workplace Sexual Harassment | Vishaka (1997) |
| Maintenance for Divorced Muslim Women | Shah Bano (1985) |
| Acid Attack Regulation and Rehabilitation | Laxmi (2014) |
| Daughter’s Coparcenary Rights | Vineeta Sharma (2020) |
| Reproductive Autonomy | Suchita Srivastava (2009); X v. Principal Secretary (2022) |
| Collegium System | Second Judges Case (1993) |
| Free and Fair Elections | Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) |
| Voter’s Right to Know | PUCL (2003); Electoral Bonds Case (2024) |
| Curative Petition | Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) |
Related Posts #
- Fundamental Rights: Part III of the Indian Constitution
- Citizenship in India: Constitutional and Legal Provisions