Constitutional Interpretation & Basic Structure

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Basic Structure Doctrine

   🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

   🗓 Year: 1973

   ⚖ Case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

   👥 Bench Strength: 13 Judges (largest in Indian history)

   📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 13, Article 368

   🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Basic Structure Doctrine

   💬 Famous Line: “Amend as you may, but do not destroy the Constitution’s soul.”

   🔹 2. Context & Background

   In the early 1970s, the Indira Gandhi government enacted a series of constitutional amendments aiming to:

   • Expand the powers of Parliament

   • Curtail property rights

   • Limit the scope of judicial review

   Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a mutt in Kerala, filed a petition challenging the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments. The case quickly escalated into a pivotal debate: Can Parliament alter the core identity of the Constitution?

   🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

   • Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368?

   • Can Fundamental Rights be curtailed or removed through amendments?

   • Are there implicit limitations on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution?

   🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

   In a 7:6 split verdict, the Supreme Court held that:

   • Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights

   • However, it cannot alter or destroy the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution

   • This Basic Structure limitation, although unwritten, is essential to preserve the Constitution’s identity

   A powerful line from the judgment captures its spirit:

   “The Constitution is not what Parliament says it is—it is what the judiciary interprets it to be, within constitutional limits.”

   ⸻

   🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

   Basic Structure Doctrine: Certain fundamental features of the Constitution are inviolable. These include:

   • Sovereignty and integrity of India

   • Secularism and federalism

   • Judicial review and rule of law

   • Separation of powers

   • Free and fair elections

   These elements cannot be amended out of existence, even by a constitutional majority.

   🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

   • Became the bedrock of constitutional democracy in India

   • Placed effective limits on Parliament’s amending power

   • Strengthened the role of the judiciary as guardian of the Constitution

   • Invoked in key future cases such as:

   • Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

   • NJAC case (2015)

   • Sabarimala (2018)

   • Electoral Bonds case (2024)

   The doctrine continues to act as a constitutional firewall protecting democratic values from majoritarian overreach.

   🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

   • GS Paper 2:

   • Constitutional amendments

   • Doctrine of judicial review

   • Separation of powers

   • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

   • Constitutional morality

   • Institutional integrity

   • Essay Paper:

   • Themes like “Safeguarding Democracy”, “Limits of Power”, “Role of Institutions”

   • UPSC Interview:

   • Can be used in responses related to governance checks, federalism, or judiciary’s role in democracy

MAJOR SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS

Download the PDF here

2. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) – Fundamental Rights can’t be amended (overruled later)

   🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

   🗓 Year: 1967

   ⚖ Case: Golak Nath v. State of Punjab

   👥 Bench Strength: 11 Judges

   📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 13, Article 368

   🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Fundamental Rights are non-amendable

   💬 Famous Line: “Parliament cannot curtail Fundamental Rights under the guise of amendment.”

   🔹 2. Context & Background

   During the 1950s and 1960s, Parliament passed several constitutional amendments that curtailed property rights. These included the First, Fourth, and Seventeenth Amendments, which were meant to implement land reform laws and place them in the Ninth Schedule beyond judicial review.

   Henry Golak Nath, a former MP and landlord from Punjab, challenged these amendments, arguing that they violated his Fundamental Right to property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. The case raised the critical question of whether Fundamental Rights could be abridged by constitutional amendment.

   🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

   • Can Parliament amend Part III of the Constitution, which deals with Fundamental Rights?

   • Is there a difference between the power to legislate and the power to amend?

   • Does Article 368 grant unlimited amending powers?

   🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

   In a 6:5 majority verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that:

   • Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct and cannot be abridged or taken away by Parliament, even through constitutional amendments

   • Article 368 only outlines the procedure to amend the Constitution, but does not confer the power to amend

   • Any amendment violating Fundamental Rights would be void under Article 13(2)

   This decision marked the first time the Supreme Court curbed Parliament’s amending power, establishing judicial supremacy over constitutional amendments.

   🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

   The Court held that Fundamental Rights are non-amendable, treating constitutional amendments like ordinary laws in the context of Article 13. This interpretation was later overruled in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), but it laid the groundwork for the basic structure debate and shaped the trajectory of constitutional law in India.

   🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

   • Temporarily limited Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights

   • Triggered the 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971), which attempted to restore Parliament’s absolute amending power

   • Set the stage for the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case

   • Though later overruled, it was a critical step in evolving the checks and balances between the judiciary and Parliament

   🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

   • GS Paper 2:

   • Evolution of constitutional interpretation

   • Role of judiciary in protecting rights

   • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

   • Protection of civil liberties

   • Institutional independence

   • Essay Paper:

   • Use in essays on Judicial Activism, Limits of Power, Constitutional Supremacy

   • UPSC Interview:

   • Useful in debates on judicial review, property rights, and constitutional amendments

Download the PDF here

3. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

   🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

   🗓 Year: 1975

   ⚖ Case: Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain

   👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges

   📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 329(b), Article 14, Article 368

   🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Democracy as part of the Basic Structure

   💬 Famous Line: “Democracy is an essential feature of the Constitution.”

   🔹 2. Context & Background

   This case arose in the aftermath of the Allahabad High Court’s judgment that found Prime Minister Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices during the 1971 Lok Sabha election. The ruling disqualified her from Parliament, prompting a constitutional crisis. While the matter was under appeal in the Supreme Court, the government passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment, inserting Article 329A, which barred judicial review of elections to the offices of President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, and Speaker.

   The amendment placed the Prime Minister’s election beyond the purview of courts, violating the principle of equality and free and fair elections.

   🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

   • Can Parliament use its amending power to shield specific individuals from judicial scrutiny?

   • Does excluding judicial review of elections violate the Right to Equality under Article 14?

   • Is free and fair election a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution?

   🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

   The Supreme Court struck down Clause 4 of Article 329A, holding that:

   • The amendment violated the Basic Structure Doctrine, as it destroyed the principle of free and fair elections

   • Democracy, judicial review, and rule of law are integral to the Constitution

   • The amendment also violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) by creating special privileges for one individual

   Justice H.R. Khanna’s observation became historic: “Democracy postulates that the people elect their representatives. Free and fair elections are thus a basic feature of the Constitution.”

   🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

   The judgment extended the scope of the Basic Structure Doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), by adding:

   • Free and fair elections

   • Rule of law

   • Judicial review of electoral disputes

   as features that cannot be destroyed even by a constitutional amendment.

   🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

   • Reinforced the judiciary’s power to strike down amendments violating democratic principles

   • Asserted the idea that individual-specific laws undermining constitutional equality are invalid

   • Became a key precedent post-Emergency in restoring electoral accountability

   • Strengthened the doctrine of constitutional supremacy over political expediency

   🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

   • GS Paper 2:

   • Electoral reforms

   • Constitutional safeguards for democracy

   • Judicial review and parliamentary limits

   • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

   • Abuse of power

   • Constitutional morality

   • Essay Paper:

   • Use in essays on Democracy, Electoral Integrity, Checks and Balances

   • UPSC Interview:

   • Relevant in discussions on misuse of power, electoral ethics, and role of institutions

Download the PDF here

4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

   🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

   🗓 Year: 1980

   ⚖ Case: Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India

   👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges

   📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 368, Article 14, Article 19, Article 31C

   🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the Basic Structure

   💬 Famous Line: “Harmonious relationship between Parts III and IV is essential to our constitutional philosophy.”

   🔹 2. Context & Background

   Minerva Mills, a private textile mill in Karnataka, was nationalized under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. The company challenged this action and, during the proceedings, also contested the validity of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976)—passed during the Emergency—which had dramatically expanded Parliament’s power.

   The Amendment modified Article 31C, stating that any law made to implement Directive Principles (Part IV) could not be struck down even if it violated Fundamental Rights under Article 14 or Article 19. This raised deep concerns over whether Directive Principles could override Fundamental Rights completely.

   🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

   • Can Parliament amend the Constitution in a way that destroys Fundamental Rights?

   • Does giving supremacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights violate the Basic Structure?

   • Is there a constitutional limit to Parliament’s amending power?

   🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

   The Supreme Court unanimously struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment as unconstitutional. It held that:

   • Limited amending power is part of the Basic Structure

   • The harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV) is essential and cannot be disturbed

   • Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that eliminates judicial review or weakens core rights

   Justice Chandrachud stated: “The Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III and IV. To destroy the guarantees in Part III in order to achieve the goals of Part IV is plainly to subvert the Constitution.”

   🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

   • Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the Basic Structure

   • Judicial review and limited amending power reaffirmed

   • The 42nd Amendment’s overreach was constitutionally invalidated

   🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

   • The judgment restored constitutional equilibrium between rights and duties

   • Prevented Parliament from using Directive Principles to completely override Fundamental Rights

   • Reinforced judicial review as a critical tool to uphold constitutional supremacy

   • Became a foundational case for interpreting social justice and rights-based governance in tandem

   🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

   • GS Paper 2:

   • Amendment of the Constitution

   • Fundamental Rights vs. Directive Principles

   • Role of Judiciary in constitutional interpretation

   • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

   • Balancing rights and responsibilities

   • Constitutional ethics

   • Essay Paper:

   • Themes on Justice, Constitutional Balance, Role of Institutions

   • UPSC Interview:

   • Useful in explaining judicial restraint, constitutional harmony, and Emergency-era legal legacy

Download the PDF here

5. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

   🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

   🗓 Year: 1994

   ⚖ Case: S. R. Bommai v. Union of India

   👥 Bench Strength: 9 Judges

   📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 356, Article 365, Article 74

   🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Federalism and Secularism as part of the Basic Structure; Judicial Review of President’s Rule

   💬 Famous Line: “President’s satisfaction is not beyond judicial scrutiny.”

   🔹 2. Context & Background

   This case emerged after the dismissal of several state governments by the Centre invoking Article 356, often on political grounds. One such case was in Karnataka, where the S. R. Bommai-led Janata Dal government was dismissed despite having majority support.

   The arbitrary use of President’s Rule by the central government raised serious constitutional concerns over the misuse of Article 356, which allows the Centre to dismiss a state government in case of constitutional breakdown. The case was referred to a 9-judge Constitutional Bench to examine the limits of this power.

   🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

   • Is the President’s decision under Article 356 subject to judicial review?

   • Can the Centre dissolve a state legislature without a floor test?

   • Are federalism and secularism protected under the Basic Structure Doctrine?

   🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

   The Supreme Court unanimously laid down strict guidelines for the use of Article 356 and held that:

   • President’s satisfaction is not absolute; it is subject to judicial review

   • A floor test in the assembly is the only legitimate way to test majority

   • Federalism is part of the Basic Structure, and Centre’s powers over states are limited and reviewable

   • The use of Article 356 must be exceptional, not routine or politically motivated

   The court reinstated the Bommai government, emphasizing the rule of law over executive discretion.

   🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

   • Federalism and secularism are essential features of the Constitution and part of the Basic Structure

   • Judicial review of President’s Rule is permitted

   • Majority must be tested on the floor of the House, not decided by the Governor or Centre

   🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

   • Landmark judgment in strengthening federalism and democratic accountability

   • Curbed politically motivated dismissals of state governments

   • Used as a precedent in later cases involving misuse of Article 356

   • Reaffirmed that secularism is a constitutional value, not merely a political philosophy

   • Shifted Indian federalism from central dominance to cooperative balance

   🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

   • GS Paper 2:

   • Centre-State Relations

   • Emergency Provisions

   • Role of Governor and President

   • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

   • Abuse of power

   • Ethical governance and federal responsibility

   • Essay Paper:

   • Themes like “Federalism in India”, “Balance of Power”, “Strengthening Democracy”

   • UPSC Interview:

   • Relevant in discussions on recent instances of Article 356, state autonomy, and misuse of executive power

6. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

   🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

   🗓 Year: 1978

   ⚖ Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

   👥 Bench Strength: 7 Judges

   📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 19, Article 21

   🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Due Process under Article 21; Interlinking of Fundamental Rights

   💬 Famous Line: “Procedure under Article 21 must be right, just, and fair—not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive.”

   🔹 2. Context & Background

   In 1977, journalist Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government under the Passport Act, 1967, without giving her a reason or an opportunity to be heard. She filed a writ petition under Article 32, challenging the action as a violation of her Fundamental Right to personal liberty (Article 21) and freedom of speech and movement (Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(d)).

   This case opened the door to reinterpret personal liberty in a broader and more substantive sense—beyond mere physical freedom.

   🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

   • Does the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 mean any law, or must it be just, fair, and reasonable?

   • Can Articles 14, 19, and 21 be read together for enforcing Fundamental Rights?

   • Is the right to travel abroad a part of personal liberty?

   🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

   The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Maneka Gandhi and held that:

   • Article 21 is not confined to physical liberty; it includes a wide range of rights that make life meaningful

   • The “procedure established by law” under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable, not arbitrary

   • Articles 14, 19, and 21 form a golden triangle and must be read together to ensure complete protection of rights

   • The government’s action was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice

   This case effectively overruled A.K. Gopalan (1950) and changed the entire landscape of rights jurisprudence in India.

   🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

   • Due process of law became implicitly embedded in Article 21

   • Introduced the concept of interconnectedness of Fundamental Rights

   • Natural justice and procedural fairness became central to the protection of liberty

   🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

   • Marked a shift from procedural to substantive due process in Indian constitutional law

   • Led to the expansion of Article 21, including later rights like:

   • Right to privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017)

   • Right to clean environment (Subhash Kumar, 1991)

   • Right to legal aid, education, and shelter

   • Reinforced the importance of reasonableness and fairness in state action

   • Became the basis for a range of progressive judgments in the decades that followed

   🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

   • GS Paper 2:

   • Interpretation of Fundamental Rights

   • Evolution of Article 21 and due process

   • Rights-based approach in governance

   • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

   • Justice, fairness, procedural ethics

   • Essay Paper:

   • Topics on Individual Liberty, State Power vs. Civil Rights, Rule of Law

   • UPSC Interview:

   • Useful in discussions on personal freedoms, digital rights, right to privacy, and administrative fairness

Download the PDF here

Download the PDF here

7. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

   🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

   🗓 Year: 2017

   ⚖ Case: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India

   👥 Bench Strength: 9 Judges (unanimous)

   📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 19, Article 21

   🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right under Article 21

   💬 Famous Line: “Privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity.”

   🔹 2. Context & Background

   This case originated when retired Justice K.S. Puttaswamy filed a petition challenging the mandatory use of Aadhaar, claiming it violated the right to privacy. At the time, the government argued that privacy was not a Fundamental Right, based on earlier rulings like M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962).

   The matter was referred to a 9-judge Constitutional Bench to decide whether the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to privacy as a fundamental right.

   🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

   • Is privacy protected under Article 21 as part of personal liberty?

   • Should earlier decisions that denied the existence of such a right be overruled?

   • What is the scope and limit of the right to privacy in a democratic society?

   🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

   The Court unanimously held that:

   • Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right, protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21

   • The earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were overruled

   • Privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty, and includes bodily integrity, informational privacy, and decisional autonomy

   • Any restriction on privacy must pass the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality

   Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted: “The right to privacy is not surrendered when a person enters the public sphere.”

   🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

   • Right to Privacy is part of the Basic Structure through its integration with Article 21

   • Privacy includes multiple dimensions:

   • Informational privacy (data, Aadhaar)

   • Decisional autonomy (reproductive rights, sexual orientation)

   • Bodily privacy

   • The judgment laid down the triple test for permissible restrictions:

   • Legality (must be backed by law)

   • Necessity (legitimate state aim)

   • Proportionality (least restrictive means)

   🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

   • Overturned outdated precedents on privacy

   • Became the foundation for later landmark rulings like:

   • Navtej Johar v. Union of India (2018) – Decriminalising homosexuality

   • Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) – Decriminalising adultery

   • Aadhaar Judgment (2018) – Privacy concerns in biometric data collection

   • Elevated data protection and digital rights as constitutional concerns

   • Marked a shift towards individual-centric governance and dignity-based jurisprudence

   🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

   • GS Paper 2:

   • Evolution of Fundamental Rights

   • Digital governance and data protection

   • Right to life and liberty under Article 21

   • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

   • Autonomy, human dignity, surveillance ethics

   • Essay Paper:

   • Suitable for essays on Technology vs. Privacy, Freedom and State Surveillance, Constitutional Morality

   • UPSC Interview:

   • Useful in debates on privacy laws, Aadhaar, internet freedoms, or regulating AI and personal data

Download the PDF here

8. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

   🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

   🗓 Year: 2018

   ⚖ Case: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India

   👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges (Constitution Bench)

   📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 15, Article 19, Article 21

   🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Decriminalisation of homosexuality; Affirmation of sexual orientation as a facet of dignity and liberty

   💬 Famous Line: “History owes an apology to the members of this community.”

   🔹 2. Context & Background

   Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a colonial-era law, criminalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature,” effectively targeting the LGBTQ+ community. In 2009, the Delhi High Court in Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi had decriminalised it, but this was overturned in 2013 by the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation.

   In 2016, dancer Navtej Singh Johar and others filed a fresh petition before the Supreme Court challenging Section 377 on the grounds that it violated their fundamental rights. The matter was referred to a 5-judge Constitutional Bench.

   🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

   • Does criminalising consensual same-sex relations violate Article 21 (Right to life and dignity)?

   • Does Section 377 infringe upon Article 14 (Equality) and Article 15 (Non-discrimination)?

   • Can personal sexual orientation be protected under freedom of expression (Article 19)?

   🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

   The Court unanimously struck down the part of Section 377 IPC that criminalised consensual sex between adults, ruling that:

   • Sexual orientation is an innate part of identity and is protected under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21

   • Section 377, in criminalising consensual same-sex relationships, violated the right to dignity, privacy, and equality

   • The earlier Suresh Koushal judgment (2013) was overruled

   Justice Indu Malhotra memorably stated: “History owes an apology to the members of this community and their families.”

   🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

   • Right to choose one’s partner, express identity, and enjoy privacy and dignity is constitutionally protected

   • State cannot discriminate against individuals based on sexual orientation

   • Reaffirmed that constitutional morality must prevail over social morality

   🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

   • Decriminalised homosexuality in India, marking a monumental shift in civil rights jurisprudence

   • Strengthened the Right to Privacy laid down in Puttaswamy (2017)

   • Empowered the LGBTQ+ community with a constitutional identity

   • Paved the way for demands around anti-discrimination laws, civil union rights, and gender justice

   🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

   • GS Paper 2:

   • Human rights, constitutional equality, judicial review

   • Role of the judiciary in social reform

   • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

   • Dignity, inclusion, justice, and moral courage

   • Essay Paper:

   • Topics on Rights of the Marginalised, Liberty and Identity, Judiciary and Social Change

   • UPSC Interview:

   • Relevant in debates on LGBTQ+ rights, equality, constitutional morality, or progressive constitutionalism

Download the PDF here

9. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)

   🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

   🗓 Year: 2017

   ⚖ Case: Shayara Bano v. Union of India

   👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges (Constitution Bench)

   📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 15, Article 21, Article 25

   🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Triple Talaq is unconstitutional; Gender equality and dignity override personal law practices

   💬 Famous Line: “What is sinful under religion cannot be valid under law.”

   🔹 2. Context & Background

   Shayara Bano, a Muslim woman, was divorced through instant triple talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat) by her husband. She challenged the practice as being arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Fundamental Rights. The case triggered a national debate on the extent to which personal laws are subject to the Constitution, particularly in relation to gender justice.

   The matter was referred to a 5-judge Constitutional Bench to examine the constitutional validity of triple talaq, a practice allowed under Muslim Personal Law but long criticised as regressive and anti-women.

   🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

   • Does instant triple talaq violate Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (dignity and personal liberty)?

   • Can practices permitted under religious personal law be tested on the touchstone of Fundamental Rights?

   • Is triple talaq protected under Article 25 (freedom of religion)?

   🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

   In a 3:2 majority judgment, the Court declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional, holding that:

   • It is manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14

   • It does not enjoy protection under Article 25, as it is not an essential religious practice

   • Personal laws are not immune from the test of constitutional morality and fundamental rights

   The minority view held that Parliament should decide the issue through legislation. However, the majority struck it down immediately.

   🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

   • Arbitrariness is a ground for violation of Article 14, even in matters of personal law

   • The practice of triple talaq is not an essential religious practice and can be constitutionally invalidated

   • Gender justice and dignity are paramount and cannot be compromised under the guise of religious freedom

   🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

   • Led to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalised instant triple talaq

   • Marked a significant step in aligning personal law with constitutional values

   • Strengthened the principle that religious practices must comply with fundamental rights

   • Reinforced the judiciary’s role in upholding gender justice within religious contexts

   🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

   • GS Paper 2:

   • Personal laws and constitutional rights

   • Gender equality and judicial activism

   • Intersection of religion and law

   • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

   • Justice, dignity, moral courage, constitutional morality

   • Essay Paper:

   • Suitable for topics on Women’s Rights, Religious Reform, Balancing Tradition and Equality

   • UPSC Interview:

   • Useful in discussions on Uniform Civil Code, women’s rights, secularism, and role of judiciary in social reform

10. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2018

    ⚖ Case: Joseph Shine v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 15, Article 21

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Decriminalisation of adultery; Equality, dignity, and autonomy in personal relationships

    💬 Famous Line: “A woman is not the property of her husband.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code criminalised adultery, making it an offence committed only by a man who had sexual relations with a married woman without the consent of her husband. The woman herself could not be punished and was treated as a victim, reinforcing the notion of male dominance in marriage.

    In 2017, Joseph Shine, a non-resident Keralite, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutionality of Section 497, arguing that it violated the Right to Equality and the Right to Personal Liberty of both men and women.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Does Section 497 violate Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 15 (non-discrimination)?

    • Does treating the woman as her husband’s property violate Article 21 (dignity and personal autonomy)?

    • Can morality-based criminal laws infringe on personal liberty and individual choice?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court unanimously struck down Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional, holding that:

    • The law was archaic, patriarchal, and discriminatory, and violated Articles 14, 15, and 21

    • It reduced a woman to a mere chattel, with no agency or autonomy

    • The criminal law cannot regulate morality in consensual adult relationships

    • Marriage does not imply the extinguishment of constitutional rights, especially of women

    Justice D.Y. Chandrachud emphasized: *“The husband is not the master of the wife. Women must be equal participants in marriage, not passive objects.”

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Gender equality and individual dignity are central to Article 21

    • Laws rooted in patriarchal assumptions are unconstitutional

    • The State cannot legislate private morality in adult consensual relationships

    • The judgment reinforced that marital status does not limit fundamental rights

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Decriminalised adultery, making it a civil issue rather than a criminal offence

    • Marked another major move toward individual liberty and gender justice

    • Paved the way for further conversations on gender-neutral laws, marital rights, and reproductive autonomy

    • Reinforced the Puttaswamy judgment’s emphasis on privacy and autonomy

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Constitutional safeguards for women

    • Role of judiciary in advancing social justice

    • Criminal law reforms

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Dignity, autonomy, justice, and breaking gender stereotypes

    • Essay Paper:

    • Apt for themes like Gender Equality, Marriage and Rights, Justice in Private Life

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Relevant in discussions on gender-sensitive legislation, criminal law reform, or equality in personal laws

Download the PDF here

Download the PDF here

11. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1992

    ⚖ Case: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (also known as the Mandal Commission case)

    👥 Bench Strength: 9 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 15(4), Article 16(4), Article 340

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: 50% cap on reservations; Concept of the “creamy layer”

    💬 Famous Line: “Equality is not merely formal; it must be real and substantive.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    In 1990, the V.P. Singh government implemented the recommendations of the Mandal Commission (1979), which proposed 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government jobs. This triggered widespread protests across the country and led to multiple legal challenges.

    The case was referred to a 9-judge Constitutional Bench to decide the constitutional validity of the move and examine the larger question of reservation, backwardness, and equality under the Constitution.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Can the State provide reservations solely based on caste?

    • Is there a limit to how much reservation can be given under Article 16(4)?

    • Can creamy layer individuals among OBCs be excluded from benefits?

    • Do reservations apply only to initial appointments, or also to promotions?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Court upheld the constitutionality of 27% reservation for OBCs, but with key restrictions:

    • Introduced the concept of the “creamy layer”, excluding socially advanced individuals among OBCs from reservation benefits

    • Imposed a 50% cap on total reservations, except in extraordinary circumstances

    • Held that economic criteria alone cannot determine backwardness

    • Ruled that reservations in promotions were not allowed under Article 16(4) (this was later modified by the 77th Amendment)

    The judgment emphasised substantive equality, while preserving administrative efficiency.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Creamy layer doctrine to ensure that benefits reach the truly backward

    • 50% reservation cap as a general constitutional rule

    • Backwardness must be social and educational, not just economic

    • Reaffirmed that Article 16(4) is not an exception but a facet of equality

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Became the definitive legal position on reservations in India

    • Guided all future policies on OBC identification and quota design

    • Led to constitutional amendments like the 77th (1995) and 93rd (2005) to restore reservation in promotions and educational institutions

    • Formed the legal foundation for challenges and decisions in later cases like:

    • M. Nagaraj (2006)

    • Jarnail Singh (2018)

    • Maratha Reservation case (2021)

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Reservation policy, social justice, and equality

    • Balance between merit and affirmative action

    • Constitutional interpretation of Articles 15 and 16

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Equity vs. equality, distributive justice

    • Essay Paper:

    • Topics on Reservation Debate, Social Inclusion, Equality of Opportunity

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Relevant in debates on reservation caps, EWS quota, caste census, or creamy layer in SC/ST categories

Download the PDF here

12. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2006

    ⚖ Case: M. Nagaraj v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 16(4), 16(4A), 16(4B), Article 335

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Conditions for reservation in promotions; Reservation is not a fundamental right

    💬 Famous Line: “The constitutional amendments do not obliterate the concept of equality.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Following the Indra Sawhney judgment (1992), the Supreme Court had disallowed reservations in promotions. In response, Parliament passed the 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Constitutional Amendments to allow reservations in promotions for SCs and STs and relax conditions like promotion criteria and carry-forward rules.

    These amendments were challenged in the M. Nagaraj case on the grounds that they violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution, particularly the principle of equality.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Can Parliament provide for reservation in promotions for SCs/STs under Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B)?

    • Do these amendments violate the Basic Structure Doctrine?

    • What are the conditions or safeguards required for implementing such reservations?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the amendments, but imposed strict conditions for their implementation:

    • The State must demonstrate backwardness, inadequate representation, and administrative efficiency before granting reservation in promotions

    • These conditions must be based on quantifiable data

    • The principle of creamy layer exclusion applies to OBCs but not to SC/STs (this point was later revisited)

    • Equality under Article 14 is part of the Basic Structure and must be respected even in affirmative action

    Thus, the verdict upheld the amendments but limited their automatic application.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Reservation in promotion is not a fundamental right

    • Three-pronged test for promotion reservation:

    • Proof of backwardness

    • Evidence of inadequate representation

    • Assurance of administrative efficiency (Article 335)

    • Affirmed that constitutional amendments are subject to Basic Structure review

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Became the benchmark for applying reservation in promotions

    • Forced governments to collect empirical data before implementing such policies

    • The judgment was partially reconsidered in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018), which:

    • Removed the requirement to prove backwardness for SCs/STs

    • Reaffirmed the need for quantifiable data and administrative efficiency

    • Continues to guide service-related reservation policies and legal challenges

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Reservation in public employment

    • Judicial checks on affirmative action

    • Interpretation of constitutional amendments

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Fairness vs. efficiency, affirmative action ethics

    • Essay Paper:

    • Themes like Reservation in Promotions, Merit vs. Representation, Social Justice in Bureaucracy

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Useful in discussions on SC/ST representation, service reforms, or EWS and creamy layer debates

Download the PDF here

13. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2018

    ⚖ Case: Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 16(4), Article 16(4A), Article 335

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Relaxation of M. Nagaraj requirements; Creamy layer applicable to SCs/STs in promotions

    💬 Famous Line: “The concept of creamy layer is a principle of equality, not a tool of exclusion.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The M. Nagaraj (2006) judgment had upheld reservation in promotions for SCs/STs but required the government to collect quantifiable data to prove backwardness, inadequate representation, and maintenance of administrative efficiency. It also stated that the creamy layer concept would apply to OBCs but not to SCs/STs.

    This led to implementation hurdles. In Jarnail Singh, the constitutional validity of this interpretation was challenged, and the Court revisited M. Nagaraj to address whether SCs/STs too should be subject to the creamy layer exclusion.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Does the requirement to prove backwardness for SCs/STs violate their rights under Article 16(4A)?

    • Can the creamy layer concept be applied to SCs/STs in promotions?

    • Is it necessary to collect quantifiable data on backwardness or just on inadequate representation?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court partially overruled M. Nagaraj and held that:

    • It is not necessary to collect data to prove backwardness of SCs/STs for promotions, as their backwardness is constitutionally recognised

    • However, quantifiable data must still be collected to demonstrate inadequate representation and to maintain administrative efficiency

    • The creamy layer principle applies to SCs/STs in promotions to prevent the benefits from going to the advanced among them

    • This ensures a balance between affirmative action and equality

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Backwardness test waived for SCs/STs, but other Nagaraj conditions remain

    • Creamy layer exclusion applies to SCs/STs for promotions under Article 16(4A)

    • Reinforced that equality is a part of the Basic Structure, and affirmative action must be justified and data-driven

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Clarified the constitutional status of promotion-based reservations for SCs/STs

    • Strengthened the framework for empirical justification in implementing quotas

    • Became a key reference point in ongoing cases involving service-based reservations, including for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)

    • Opened wider discussions on the applicability of creamy layer across all reserved categories

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Reservation policy and legal evolution

    • Service rules and constitutional mandates

    • Balancing social justice with meritocracy

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Ethical implementation of affirmative action

    • Inclusivity vs. elite capture in welfare

    • Essay Paper:

    • Use in topics like Evolving Nature of Equality, Reservation and Social Justice, Data-Driven Governance

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Useful in questions on caste-based reforms, promotion policies, or how to refine reservation models

Download the PDF here

Download the PDF here

14. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister (2021)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2021

    ⚖ Case: Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra (Maratha Reservation Case)

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 15(4), Article 16(4), Article 342A

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: 50% ceiling on reservation reaffirmed; State cannot identify SEBCs independently

    💬 Famous Line: “Exceeding the 50% limit is not permissible without exceptional circumstances.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    In 2018, the Maharashtra government enacted a law granting 16% reservation to the Maratha community under the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) category in education and public employment. This pushed total reservations in the state beyond the 50% ceiling laid down in Indra Sawhney (1992).

    The law was challenged for violating the constitutional cap and for the state’s power to identify SEBCs after the 102nd Constitutional Amendment (2018), which created a national list of backward classes via Article 342A.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Can states breach the 50% reservation ceiling established in Indra Sawhney?

    • Does the 102nd Constitutional Amendment take away states’ power to identify SEBCs?

    • Was the Maratha community socially and educationally backward, justifying separate reservation?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court struck down the Maharashtra SEBC Act and held that:

    • The 50% ceiling on reservations is binding, and no exceptional circumstances existed to justify a breach

    • The Maratha community is not socially and educationally backward to warrant special reservation

    • After the 102nd Amendment, only the President (Centre) can notify SEBCs in consultation with the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC); states have lost this power under Article 342A

    This ruling reaffirmed the constitutional limitation on excessive reservation and clarified the division of powers between Centre and States.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Reservation ceiling of 50% reaffirmed as a constitutional rule

    • States cannot independently identify SEBCs post the 102nd Amendment

    • Reinforced the constitutional mandate for data-driven and exceptional justification for exceeding reservation limits

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Invalidated the Maratha quota law, reducing total reservations in Maharashtra back within the limit

    • Created legal uncertainty about the states’ role in identifying backward classes, prompting the 105th Constitutional Amendment (2021) which restored this power to states

    • Reopened debates on whether the 50% limit is rigid or flexible, especially with the addition of EWS reservation

    • Strengthened judicial oversight over affirmative action policies

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Centre-State relations in social justice delivery

    • Constitutional limits on reservation

    • Role of constitutional amendments in governance

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Equity vs. excess, ethical affirmative action

    • Essay Paper:

    • Useful for themes like Reservation Policy, Reforming Social Justice Mechanisms, Federalism and Constitutional Limits

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Relevant in questions on reservation limits, caste-based policies, and the interplay between state laws and constitutional mandates

15. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2003

    ⚖ Case: PUCL v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 3 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 19(1)(a), Article 21

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Right to know about electoral candidates is a Fundamental Right

    💬 Famous Line: “The right to know is a natural consequence of the right to freedom of speech and expression.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The case originated from a PIL filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) demanding mandatory disclosure of information by electoral candidates. This included details of criminal background, assets and liabilities, and educational qualifications.

    PUCL argued that informed voting is essential for democracy and that voters have a right to know whom they are voting for. Parliament had earlier passed the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002, which sought to dilute this requirement. The case challenged the constitutional validity of this move.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Is the right to know about a candidate’s background protected under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression)?

    • Can the State withhold vital information from voters in the name of legislative power?

    • Does limiting voter access to information violate Article 21 (right to make informed choices)?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court ruled in favour of PUCL and held that:

    • Voters have a Fundamental Right to know the antecedents of electoral candidates

    • This right flows from Article 19(1)(a), as freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive information

    • The 2002 Ordinance passed by Parliament, which attempted to nullify disclosure requirements, was unconstitutional

    • Democracy thrives on transparency, and informed citizenry is vital for free and fair elections

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Right to know is a component of the freedom of expression

    • Transparency in elections is necessary for meaningful participation in a democracy

    • Legislative actions that weaken citizen empowerment are open to judicial scrutiny

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Made it mandatory for candidates to file affidavits declaring their:

    • Criminal history (if any)

    • Educational qualifications

    • Assets and liabilities

    • Laid the foundation for electoral reforms and subsequent judgments, such as:

    • Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) – Disqualification of convicted MPs/MLAs

    • Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) – Reinforced voters’ right to know

    • Empowered civil society and media to scrutinise candidates before elections

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Electoral reforms, transparency, and voter rights

    • Role of judiciary in strengthening democracy

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Accountability, transparency, moral leadership

    • Essay Paper:

    • Topics like Strengthening Indian Democracy, Informed Citizenship, Transparency in Governance

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Useful in discussions on criminalisation of politics, electoral disclosures, and voter empowerment

16. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2002

    ⚖ Case: Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR)

    👥 Bench Strength: 2 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 19(1)(a), Article 324

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Voter’s Right to Know is part of the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Expression

    💬 Famous Line: “A well-informed voter is the foundation of a healthy democracy.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) had approached the Delhi High Court in 1999 seeking a direction to the Election Commission to obtain and disclose information about the criminal, financial, and educational background of candidates contesting elections.

    When the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of ADR, the Union of India challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that such disclosures were not required under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Does the voter have a fundamental right to know the background of candidates under Article 19(1)(a)?

    • Can the Election Commission expand its powers under Article 324 to seek such disclosures in absence of parliamentary law?

    • Is disclosure essential for free and fair elections?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision and ruled that:

    • The right to know the background of candidates is part of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)

    • The Election Commission can exercise residual powers under Article 324 to ensure free and fair elections

    • Parliament’s failure to legislate cannot prevent citizens from accessing essential information about those who seek to represent them

    This ruling became a milestone in deepening electoral democracy in India.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Right to know about candidates is a constitutional right for informed participation in elections

    • Article 324 empowers the Election Commission to take necessary actions even in the absence of express statutory provisions

    • Citizens’ rights override legislative inaction

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Made it mandatory for all candidates to disclose criminal records, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications

    • Was followed by the PUCL v. Union of India (2003) case, which reaffirmed this right

    • Catalyzed a wave of electoral transparency reforms and civil society participation in electoral scrutiny

    • Marked a turning point in empowering voters to make informed choices

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Electoral reforms and transparency

    • Constitutional powers of the Election Commission

    • Citizens’ rights in electoral democracy

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Integrity in public life, transparency, right to information

    • Essay Paper:

    • Topics like Empowering the Voter, Transparency in Elections, Strengthening Democracy

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Useful in discussions on electoral criminality, voter awareness, and constitutional remedies when legislation is absent

17. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2013

    ⚖ Case: Lily Thomas v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 2 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 102(1)(e), Article 191(1)(e), Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Immediate disqualification of convicted legislators; Section 8(4) held unconstitutional

    💬 Famous Line: “A person convicted of a serious crime has no right to represent the people.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Under Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, sitting MPs and MLAs convicted of offences were allowed a 3-month window to appeal, during which their disqualification would be suspended. This special protection did not apply to ordinary citizens contesting elections.

    Advocate Lily Thomas filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(4) on the grounds that it violated the principle of equality before the law and free and fair elections.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Does Section 8(4) create an unfair exception for sitting legislators?

    • Should disqualification be immediate upon conviction, or only after exhausting appeals?

    • Does this provision violate Article 14 (equality) and the spirit of Article 102 and Article 191?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court declared Section 8(4) of the RP Act unconstitutional, holding that:

    • Sitting MPs and MLAs will be disqualified immediately upon conviction in a criminal case attracting more than 2 years of imprisonment

    • There cannot be a privileged class of lawmakers exempt from the same rules that apply to others

    • Parliament cannot override constitutional provisions (Articles 102 and 191) through statutory law

    This decision struck a blow against the criminalisation of politics and demanded higher standards of conduct from elected representatives.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Immediate disqualification on conviction is necessary to uphold equality before law

    • Parliament cannot legislate to delay constitutional consequences

    • Elected office demands moral legitimacy, not just procedural victory

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Led to automatic disqualification of MPs/MLAs upon conviction without time for appeal

    • Resulted in the disqualification of several high-profile legislators soon after the judgment

    • Prompted calls for a clean politics movement and stricter candidate selection

    • Sparked a debate on whether conviction without final appeal violates fair process—but the Court upheld public interest as paramount

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Electoral reforms and criminalisation of politics

    • Balance between individual rights and public trust

    • Role of judiciary in democratic cleansing

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Integrity in public life, accountability, justice

    • Essay Paper:

    • Use in essays on Ethical Governance, Decriminalising Politics, Rule of Law

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Important for questions on disqualification, electoral integrity, and judicial activism in governance

18. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2006

    ⚖ Case: Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (also called the Bihar Assembly Dissolution Case)

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 174, Article 356, Article 163, Article 164

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Unconstitutional dissolution of assemblies is subject to judicial review

    💬 Famous Line: “The Governor is not an agent of a political party.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    In 2005, the Bihar Legislative Assembly elections resulted in a hung assembly, with no clear majority. Before the assembly could be convened, the Governor sent a report to the Centre recommending dissolution, citing alleged attempts at horse-trading.

    The President dissolved the Assembly under Article 174 even before it held its first sitting. This decision was challenged by multiple political parties and candidates, including Rameshwar Prasad, on the grounds that the dissolution was premature, arbitrary, and anti-democratic.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Can the Governor recommend dissolution of the assembly before it is constituted or meets?

    • Is judicial review applicable in such cases of President’s Rule or Assembly dissolution?

    • Does pre-emptive dissolution undermine democratic mandate?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court ruled that:

    • The dissolution of the Bihar Assembly was unconstitutional

    • The Governor’s action was based on political speculation rather than actual breakdown of constitutional machinery

    • The Governor, as a constitutional functionary, must remain neutral and apolitical

    • Although the Court did not restore the dissolved Assembly (elections had already been held), it strongly condemned the misuse of Article 174 and the Governor’s discretion

    This case reinforced that Governors and the Centre cannot override electoral outcomes through premature dissolution.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Governor’s discretion is subject to constitutional limits and cannot be exercised arbitrarily

    • Judicial review applies to dissolution of assemblies if done in violation of constitutional principles

    • Electoral democracy must not be subverted by political interference from constitutional authorities

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Marked a major precedent in limiting the misuse of gubernatorial powers

    • Strengthened judicial oversight over federal mechanisms and constitutional authorities

    • Cited in later cases related to floor tests, assembly dissolution, and the role of Governors

    • Reinforced democratic legitimacy and prevented executive manipulation of electoral mandates

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Role and responsibility of the Governor

    • Misuse of constitutional provisions

    • Judicial review in federal relations

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Political neutrality, constitutional morality

    • Essay Paper:

    • Use in themes like Safeguarding Democracy, Federal Ethics, Strengthening Electoral Institutions

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Highly relevant for questions on Centre-State tensions, misuse of Article 356, or reforms in gubernatorial discretion

19. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2013)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2013

    ⚖ Case: PUCL v. Union of India (NOTA Case)

    👥 Bench Strength: 2 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 19(1)(a), Article 21, Conduct of Election Rules, 1961

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Right to negative voting as part of freedom of expression

    💬 Famous Line: “Democracy thrives when the voter is empowered with choice.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) filed a PIL seeking the inclusion of a “None of the Above” (NOTA) option in electronic voting machines (EVMs). The aim was to empower voters who wished to reject all candidates while maintaining their right to secret ballot.

    Until then, a voter who wished to abstain had to inform the presiding officer, compromising secrecy and potentially exposing political leanings.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Is the right to reject candidates part of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)?

    • Does forcing voters to reveal their abstention violate the Right to Privacy and Dignity under Article 21?

    • Can the court direct the Election Commission to introduce procedural reforms in the absence of legislation?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to provide a NOTA option in EVMs, holding that:

    • Right to vote includes the right not to vote and the right to express disapproval

    • Secrecy in voting is a constitutional guarantee and must be protected, even when a voter chooses to reject all candidates

    • Introducing NOTA will increase voter participation, force political parties to field better candidates, and enhance democratic accountability

    The Court relied on earlier precedents such as PUCL (2003) and Union of India v. ADR (2002).

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Right to reject is a legitimate form of political expression

    • Secrecy of ballot is integral to free and fair elections

    • Strengthened the idea of participatory democracy through voter autonomy

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • NOTA was introduced in all EVMs and ballot papers starting from the 2013 Assembly Elections

    • Though NOTA currently has no legal consequence (does not lead to re-election), it has become a symbolic tool for protest

    • Sparked debates about strengthening NOTA, including proposals for fresh elections if NOTA gets the majority

    • Reaffirmed the Court’s proactive role in electoral reforms

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Electoral reforms, rights of voters, Election Commission’s role

    • Judicial innovation in participatory democracy

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Autonomy, civic responsibility, transparency

    • Essay Paper:

    • Suitable for essays on Empowering the Electorate, Choice in Democracy, Deepening Electoral Reforms

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Relevant in discussions on NOTA reforms, voter awareness, and improving electoral participation

20. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1997

    ⚖ Case: Vishaka & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others

    👥 Bench Strength: 3 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 15, Article 19(1)(g), Article 21

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Vishaka Guidelines on prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace

    💬 Famous Line: “Gender equality includes protection from sexual harassment and right to work with dignity.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The case was triggered by the brutal gangrape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, who was assaulted while trying to stop a child marriage. The incident revealed a complete lack of mechanisms to protect women from sexual harassment at the workplace.

    In the absence of specific legislation, the petitioners (women’s rights groups) moved the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking enforcement of Fundamental Rights to equality, dignity, and safe working conditions.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Does sexual harassment at the workplace violate Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21?

    • Can the Supreme Court frame guidelines in the absence of legislation to fill a legal vacuum?

    • Is the right to a safe workplace part of the right to life and dignity?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court unanimously held that:

    • Sexual harassment violates women’s rights to equality, freedom, and dignity, and is a clear breach of Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21

    • In the absence of legislation, the Court can frame binding guidelines under its constitutional obligation to protect Fundamental Rights

    • The Court issued the Vishaka Guidelines, laying down preventive and remedial measures to address workplace harassment

    The guidelines were to be treated as law under Article 141 until Parliament enacted specific legislation.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Judicial legislation is permissible when Fundamental Rights are at stake and legislative vacuum exists

    • Right to a safe and dignified workplace is part of Article 21

    • Preventing harassment is essential to gender equality and inclusive development

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Vishaka Guidelines became the first codified standard for preventing sexual harassment in India

    • Inspired the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

    • Used extensively by courts, employers, and institutions across India

    • Strengthened the role of the judiciary in advancing gender-sensitive governance

    • Reaffirmed that international conventions (like CEDAW) can inform Fundamental Rights jurisprudence

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Gender justice and Fundamental Rights

    • Role of judiciary in governance gaps

    • International law and domestic enforcement (CEDAW reference)

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Workplace ethics, respect, dignity, procedural fairness

    • Essay Paper:

    • Topics on Gender Sensitisation, Justice and Institutions, Law in Service of Society

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Relevant for questions on women’s safety, judicial activism, and intersection of law and policy

21. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2018

    ⚖ Case: Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Case)

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 15, Article 25, Article 26

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Essential Religious Practices Doctrine reviewed; Gender equality cannot be subverted by religious customs

    💬 Famous Line: “Patriarchy in religion cannot be permitted to trump over constitutional morality.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The case challenged the centuries-old practice at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, which barred women aged 10 to 50 years from entering the temple, citing the celibate nature of the deity, Lord Ayyappa. The Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a petition arguing that this practice was discriminatory and violated women’s Fundamental Rights.

    The temple authorities defended the ban under the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine and Article 26(b), claiming denominational autonomy.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Does excluding women from temple entry violate Articles 14 and 15 (equality and non-discrimination)?

    • Can religious customs override Fundamental Rights under Article 25 (freedom of religion)?

    • Are such customs essential religious practices, protected under Article 26?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    In a 4:1 majority, the Court struck down the ban and ruled that:

    • The exclusion of women is discriminatory and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 15, and 25

    • The practice does not constitute an essential religious practice and therefore is not protected under Article 26

    • Constitutional morality must guide all institutions, including religious ones

    • Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted: “To treat women as the lesser child of the Constitution is to blink at the Constitution itself.”

    Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, arguing that the court should not interfere in matters of deep religious belief unless they are unconstitutional on their face.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Essential Religious Practices Doctrine is not immune to Fundamental Rights scrutiny

    • Gender equality, dignity, and access to public religious spaces are constitutionally guaranteed

    • Constitutional morality must prevail over social or religious morality

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Opened the doors of Sabarimala to women of all ages, although the implementation faced resistance

    • Sparked broader national debates on the balance between religious freedom and gender justice

    • Set a precedent for cases like Haji Ali Dargah and Triple Talaq

    • Referred to a larger bench in 2019 (9-judge bench) to reconsider the scope of ERP doctrine and rights under Articles 25–26

    • Deepened the conversation around intersectionality in constitutional rights

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Fundamental Rights vs. religious practices

    • Constitutional morality and gender equality

    • ERP Doctrine and role of judiciary

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Ethical pluralism, reform vs. tradition, justice vs. belief

    • Essay Paper:

    • Apt for themes on Faith vs. Equality, Morality in Public Spaces, Constitutional Reforms

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Highly relevant for debates on religion, women’s rights, secularism, and judicial reform

22. Haji Ali Dargah Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2016)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2016

    ⚖ Case: Haji Ali Dargah Trust v. State of Maharashtra & Others

    👥 Bench Strength: 2 Judges (Bombay High Court; upheld by Supreme Court)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 15, Article 25

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Equal access to religious spaces is protected under Fundamental Rights

    💬 Famous Line: “No law grants the right to discriminate against women in matters of public worship.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    In 2012, the Haji Ali Dargah Trust in Mumbai imposed a ban on women entering the inner sanctum (mazaar) of the shrine. This exclusion marked a reversal of earlier practice, where women had access, and was justified by the Trust on grounds of religious purity and tradition.

    The ban was challenged by Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) and other petitioners, arguing that it violated gender equality and freedom of religion under the Constitution.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Does denying women access to the inner sanctum violate Articles 14 and 15 (equality and non-discrimination)?

    • Can religious institutions restrict access to public religious places under Article 25?

    • Is the practice an essential religious practice, immune from judicial scrutiny?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Bombay High Court, in a landmark decision, held that:

    • The ban on women was unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 15, and 25

    • The Trust, managing a public religious institution, cannot enforce discriminatory practices

    • The practice was not essential to Islam and could not override constitutional guarantees

    • The court directed the restoration of women’s access to the inner sanctum

    The Supreme Court later upheld the decision by refusing to stay the High Court verdict, reinforcing the ruling.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Right to equality and non-discrimination applies to access in religious spaces

    • Customary practices cannot override Fundamental Rights

    • Article 25 rights are subject to public order, morality, and health, and do not permit gender-based exclusion in public shrines

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Restored equal access to women at the Haji Ali Dargah

    • Became a pivotal moment in the women’s rights movement within religious contexts

    • Strengthened the idea that public religious institutions must uphold constitutional values

    • Set the stage for progressive judgments like Sabarimala (2018) and supported ongoing debates around uniformity in religious access laws

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Intersection of Fundamental Rights and religious freedom

    • Gender justice in public institutions

    • Secularism and equality in Indian context

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Justice, fairness, equality vs. tradition

    • Essay Paper:

    • Suitable for topics on Faith and Feminism, Tradition vs. Reform, Gendered Spaces and Constitutional Morality

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Relevant in discussions on women’s access to religious institutions, equality reforms, and judicial intervention in religious affairs

23. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1995–Ongoing)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1995 – Ongoing (continuing mandamus)

    ⚖ Case: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: Multiple benches over decades (originated with 3 Judges)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 21, Article 48A, Article 51A(g); Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Continuing Mandamus; Expanded definition of “forest”

    💬 Famous Line: “Forest is not a piece of land—it is an ecosystem.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    This case began with a PIL filed by T.N. Godavarman, a former zamindar from Tamil Nadu, seeking enforcement of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to prevent rampant deforestation in his region. The Supreme Court took a broader view and converted it into a pan-India case, aimed at protecting forest cover nationwide.

    The Court invoked its constitutional duty under Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 48A (environmental protection) to develop a comprehensive regime of forest governance.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • What constitutes a “forest” under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980?

    • Can the Court ensure long-term enforcement of environmental duties under Part IV and Part IVA of the Constitution?

    • How far can judicial powers go in managing executive and legislative gaps in environmental law?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court:

    • Interpreted the term “forest” not by ownership or classification, but by dictionary meaning, thus vastly expanding protection

    • Imposed a pan-India freeze on deforestation without central clearance

    • Introduced the concept of “continuing mandamus”, meaning the case remains open for periodic review and directions

    • Established the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) for monitoring compliance

    This case is one of the longest-running public interest environmental litigations in Indian legal history.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Continuing mandamus as a tool for long-term enforcement of constitutional duties

    • Right to a healthy environment under Article 21

    • Reaffirmed the importance of intergenerational equity, sustainable development, and precautionary principle in judicial environmentalism

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Revolutionised forest governance and environmental law enforcement in India

    • Led to protection of large forest tracts across the country

    • Regularly used by the Court to intervene in mining, deforestation, and biodiversity destruction cases

    • Strengthened institutional mechanisms like CAMPA, CEC, and State-level Monitoring Committees

    • Laid the foundation for the National Green Tribunal (2010) and deepened judicial environmental oversight

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2 & 3:

    • Environmental governance, judicial activism, constitutional mandates

    • Forest policy and conservation laws

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Intergenerational justice, environmental stewardship, constitutional morality

    • Essay Paper:

    • Useful for themes like Environment and Development, Green Justice, Judicial Activism for Sustainability

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Relevant for discussions on NGT, forest policy, judicial overreach, or the balance between development and conservation

24. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986–Ongoing)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1986 – Ongoing (multiple landmark orders)

    ⚖ Case: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (includes Ganga pollution, vehicular emissions, Oleum gas leak, etc.)

    👥 Bench Strength: Multiple benches over time

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 21, Article 32, Article 48A, Article 51A(g)

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Polluter Pays Principle, Absolute Liability, Right to Clean Environment

    💬 Famous Line: “Environmental protection is a fundamental duty of every citizen.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Environmental lawyer M.C. Mehta filed a series of PILs in the 1980s and 1990s addressing a wide range of environmental issues—from Ganga river pollution and industrial disasters to vehicular pollution in Delhi.

    The Supreme Court treated these cases as a series of environmental enforcement missions, invoking the Right to Life under Article 21 and India’s Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties to create a robust legal framework for environmental protection.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Is the right to a clean and healthy environment part of the Right to Life under Article 21?

    • What duties do industries, governments, and citizens have in preserving environmental balance?

    • Can courts lay down binding environmental principles and enforce them through continuous monitoring?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    Through various judgments in the M.C. Mehta series, the Court held that:

    • The Right to a clean and pollution-free environment is integral to Article 21

    • Introduced the Polluter Pays Principle: polluters must bear the cost of environmental damage

    • Evolved the doctrine of Absolute Liability for industries dealing with hazardous substances (not merely strict liability)

    • In the Oleum Gas Leak Case (1986), the Court stated that no enterprise has a right to harm the environment in the name of development

    • Directed measures like closure of polluting industries, relocation of tanneries, shift to CNG in Delhi, and more

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Right to Environment = Right to Life (Article 21)

    • Polluter Pays Principle

    • Absolute Liability for hazardous industries

    • Judicial application of Precautionary Principle, Sustainable Development, and Intergenerational Equity

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Set the gold standard for environmental jurisprudence in India

    • Led to critical reforms in:

    • Industrial regulation and safety norms

    • Urban air quality and emission control (e.g., CNG buses in Delhi)

    • Waste and water pollution management

    • Inspired the formation of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) frameworks and the National Green Tribunal (2010)

    • Elevated environmental rights to the level of enforceable Fundamental Rights

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2 & 3:

    • Environmental governance, role of judiciary, sustainable development

    • Case law on pollution control, Article 21 and environment

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Moral responsibility toward the planet, intergenerational justice

    • Essay Paper:

    • Ideal for essays on Environmental Ethics, Role of Judiciary in Sustainable Development, Human Rights and Nature

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Highly relevant for questions on climate policy, legal enforcement, NGT, or environmental constitutionalism

25. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1996

    ⚖ Case: Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 3 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 21, Article 48A, Article 51A(g)

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle as part of Indian law

    💬 Famous Line: “Precautionary principle and polluter pays are essential features of sustainable development.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The case arose from a PIL filed by the Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum highlighting severe groundwater and soil pollution caused by over 500 tanneries operating in Tamil Nadu. The tanneries discharged untreated effluents into the Palar River and surrounding agricultural land, endangering public health and degrading ecosystems.

    The case questioned both industrial accountability and the State’s failure to regulate environmental norms, demanding enforcement of environmental rights under Article 21.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Does pollution from industrial activity violate the Right to Life under Article 21?

    • Should India adopt international environmental principles like the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle?

    • Are these principles enforceable in Indian courts in the absence of specific legislation?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the petitioners and held that:

    • The Right to a healthy environment is an essential part of the Right to Life under Article 21

    • Introduced and formally adopted the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle into Indian law

    • Directed that environmental harm must be anticipated and prevented, not just remedied after it occurs

    • Ordered the tanneries to pay compensation for ecological damage and set up an environmental protection fund

    This case elevated international environmental norms to the status of binding domestic law.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Precautionary Principle: Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent, and attack the causes of environmental degradation

    • Polluter Pays Principle: The party responsible for pollution must bear the cost of preventing or remedying the damage

    • Both principles now form part of Indian environmental law, even without explicit legislation

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Became a cornerstone case for applying international environmental law principles domestically

    • Enhanced the role of the judiciary in ensuring industrial accountability and regulatory enforcement

    • Guided future decisions involving toxic waste, mining, urban pollution, and river conservation

    • Reinforced the judiciary’s interpretation of Article 21 as encompassing environmental rights

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2 & 3:

    • Environmental law, sustainable development, international principles in Indian context

    • Role of the judiciary in governance and regulation

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Environmental ethics, responsibility, sustainability

    • Essay Paper:

    • Apt for essays on Sustainable Development, Pollution Control and Public Health, Industrial Accountability

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Useful in questions on ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance), global standards, environmental jurisprudence

26. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2016

    ⚖ Case: Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 2 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 19(1)(a), Article 21; Section 499 & 500 of IPC

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Criminal defamation is constitutionally valid and does not violate free speech

    💬 Famous Line: “Reputation of one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of another’s right to free speech.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Politician Subramanian Swamy, along with others including Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalise defamation. They argued that criminal defamation provisions are outdated, suppress dissent, and violate the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).

    The petitioners sought the striking down of criminal defamation laws, stating that civil remedies were sufficient and that criminalising speech was disproportionate.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Are Sections 499–500 IPC violative of Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression)?

    Is criminal defamation a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2)?

    Can reputation be treated as a part of Article 21 (Right to life and personal dignity)?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of criminal defamation, holding that:

    Reputation is a fundamental right under Article 21 and must be protected

    Right to freedom of speech is not absolute and must be balanced with others’ rights under Article 19(2)

    Criminal defamation laws serve the legitimate state aim of protecting individual dignity and pass the test of reasonableness

    Section 499 IPC is narrowly defined and includes safeguards (like exceptions for public interest and fair comment)

    The Court stated: “Right to free speech is not a license to malign others.”

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Reputation is part of the right to life under Article 21

    Free speech is subject to reasonable restrictions, including protection of reputation

    Defamation laws must strike a balance between individual dignity and public discourse

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Retained criminal defamation as a valid restriction on free speech

    Reaffirmed the constitutional commitment to protecting dignity and reputation

    Sparked continued debate on whether criminal penalties for defamation are necessary in a democracy

    Clarified that civil and criminal remedies can coexist in defamation cases

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Freedom of speech vs. reasonable restrictions

    Defamation law and judicial interpretation

    Balancing rights under Articles 19 and 21

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Ethical communication, truth vs. defamation, dignity

    Essay Paper:

    Suitable for essays on Speech and Responsibility, Limits of Liberty, Balancing Rights in Democracy

    UPSC Interview:

    Relevant in discussions on media freedom, political speech, and legal accountability

27. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2020

    ⚖ Case: Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 3 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(g), Article 21; Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules, 2017

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Internet access is integral to freedom of speech and trade; indefinite internet shutdowns are unconstitutional

    💬 Famous Line: “Freedom of speech and expression through the internet is a fundamental right.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The petition was filed by journalist Anuradha Bhasin following the internet shutdown and communication blackout in Jammu & Kashmir post abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019. The shutdown impacted press freedom, public services, education, and business.

    The petition challenged the proportionality and legality of the internet suspension, raising broader concerns about democratic rights in the digital age.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Is access to the internet protected under Article 19(1)(a) as a medium of free speech?

    Are indefinite internet shutdowns constitutionally valid under the Telecom Suspension Rules, 2017?

    What are the standards of proportionality and judicial review for such executive actions?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court held that:

    Freedom of speech and trade through the internet is constitutionally protected

    Suspension of internet services must be temporary, proportionate, and necessary

    The government must publish shutdown orders, which are subject to judicial review

    Indefinite suspension of internet services is unconstitutional

    The Court did not restore internet immediately but laid down binding procedural safeguards

    The judgment did not go into the merits of the J&K situation but laid a powerful precedent for future executive actions.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Right to internet access is protected as part of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g)

    Proportionality principle must guide restrictions on fundamental rights

    State-imposed restrictions must be published, justified, and open to judicial scrutiny

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Became the foundation of digital rights jurisprudence in India

    Reinforced judicial oversight on executive use of national security powers

    Encouraged policy discourse on balancing national security with digital freedoms

    Frequently cited in later cases and public discourse on internet bans during protests or exams

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Freedom of expression in the digital age

    Proportionality doctrine and fundamental rights

    Role of judiciary in digital governance

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Transparency, accountability, digital ethics

    Essay Paper:

    Apt for essays on Liberty in a Digital Democracy, Balancing Security and Rights, Tech and Governance

    UPSC Interview:

    Useful in discussions on internet bans, national security, media freedom, and rule of law

28. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018 – Aadhaar Case)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2018

    ⚖ Case: K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Aadhaar Judgment)

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 19, Article 21; Aadhaar Act, 2016

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Right to privacy must be balanced with legitimate state interests; Aadhaar upheld with safeguards

    💬 Famous Line: “Constitutional trust demands that data be used only for legitimate state aims.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Following the 2017 Puttaswamy judgment, which declared the right to privacy a fundamental right, a Constitution Bench was formed to examine the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar project. Petitioners argued that mandatory linking of Aadhaar to services like banking, mobile SIMs, and welfare schemes violated privacy and enabled surveillance.

    The core concern was whether Aadhaar’s data collection and usage architecture could pass the tests of proportionality, necessity, and legality under the right to privacy.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Does mandatory Aadhaar linking violate the right to privacy under Article 21?

    Is the Aadhaar Act constitutionally valid, especially if passed as a Money Bill?

    Can biometric data collection be justified in a democratic setup?

    What are the reasonable limits of welfare governance in a rights-based state?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court, in a 4:1 majority, upheld the Aadhaar scheme with significant restrictions:

    Aadhaar is constitutionally valid for welfare delivery and targeted subsidies

    It is not mandatory for services like bank accounts, telecom connections, or school admissions

    Private companies cannot demand Aadhaar authentication

    The passing of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill was upheld, though Justice Chandrachud dissented, calling it unconstitutional

    The Court ordered stronger data protection measures, independent regulation, and restrictions on data storage and access

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Reiterated the proportionality doctrine: any invasion of privacy must be backed by law, have a legitimate aim, and use the least restrictive means

    Affirmed that data minimalism, consent, and purpose limitation are central to digital governance

    Established that privacy rights can be restricted, but only under rigorous constitutional scrutiny

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Provided legal legitimacy to Aadhaar, making it central to direct benefit transfers and welfare delivery

    Limited the commercial and overbroad use of Aadhaar, preventing mass profiling

    Spurred the demand for a comprehensive data protection law, leading to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

    Strengthened judicial oversight on technology-led governance

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Privacy vs. welfare rights, Aadhaar governance, digital inclusion

    Role of the state in data protection and identity management

    GS Paper 3:

    Digital infrastructure, cyber laws, technology and rights

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Consent, public trust, privacy ethics, responsible use of technology

    Essay Paper:

    Suitable for topics on Tech and the Constitution, Balancing Rights with Reform, Digital Empowerment vs. Surveillance

    UPSC Interview:

    Useful in questions on Aadhaar’s role in welfare, surveillance concerns, and right to privacy

29. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1985

    ⚖ Case: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 19(1)(e), Article 21

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Right to livelihood is part of the Right to Life under Article 21

    💬 Famous Line: “No person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The case arose when the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) decided to evict thousands of pavement dwellers and slum residents in Mumbai, citing encroachment. Olga Tellis, a journalist and activist, along with affected residents, filed a petition challenging the eviction as violative of their fundamental rights.

    They argued that the right to shelter and livelihood was inseparable from the right to life under Article 21.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Is the right to livelihood protected under the right to life (Article 21)?

    Can a person be forcibly evicted without due process, even if they occupy public land?

    Do equality and dignity under Articles 14 and 19 apply to informal workers and urban poor?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court delivered a compassionate yet balanced verdict:

    Recognised livelihood as an integral part of life under Article 21

    Held that pavement dwellers are not trespassers by choice; poverty compels migration

    However, also ruled that unauthorised occupation of public land is illegal, and eviction is permissible with due process

    Directed that no eviction shall take place without adequate notice, hearing, and rehabilitation support

    The Court emphasised that the State has a constitutional obligation to provide for the poor and vulnerable.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Right to livelihood is constitutionally protected as part of the right to life

    Due process of law must be followed even for eviction of informal settlers

    Urban planning and governance must be inclusive and humane

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Became a foundational case in expanding socio-economic rights under the Constitution

    Paved the way for later judgments affirming the right to shelter, food, and employment

    Influenced government policy on rehabilitation, slum regularisation, and inclusive urban development

    Frequently cited in PILs related to homelessness, forced eviction, and street vendors’ rights

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Socio-economic rights and urban poor

    Right to life and due process

    Inclusive governance and legal aid

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Human dignity, empathy in policy, ethical governance

    Essay Paper:

    Suitable for topics like Rights of the Marginalised, Urbanisation and Justice, Constitutional Compassion

    UPSC Interview:

    Useful in discussions on slum policies, informal labour, welfare vs. legality in governance

30. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1993

    ⚖ Case: Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 21, Article 41, Article 45, Article 46

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Right to education is implicit in Article 21 up to the age of 14

    💬 Famous Line: “Right to life and dignity cannot be assured unless accompanied by the right to education.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The case was filed by private unaided educational institutions challenging the government’s control over fees and admissions. However, the Supreme Court used the opportunity to address a larger question:

    Is education a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution?

    The judgment built upon Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992), where the Court had ruled that education is a part of the right to life.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Does Article 21 (Right to Life) include the right to education?

    Can private institutions operate without state regulation, especially in essential sectors like education?

    What is the State’s obligation under Directive Principles to provide education?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court held that:

    Right to education up to the age of 14 years is a Fundamental Right, derived from Article 21

    Beyond that age, it becomes a Directive Principle of State Policy

    The State is constitutionally obligated to provide free and compulsory education up to 14 years

    The Court also laid down a scheme for fee regulation and capitation fees to prevent profiteering by private institutions

    This decision marked the judicial recognition of education as a right, laying the foundation for future legislation.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Education is an enforceable component of Article 21, up to age 14

    The State must ensure universal elementary education

    Commercialisation of education is contrary to constitutional values

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Laid the groundwork for the 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002), which inserted Article 21A, making free and compulsory education a Fundamental Right

    Influenced the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act)

    Introduced accountability and affordability norms in private education

    Reaffirmed the link between dignity, empowerment, and education

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Education as a Fundamental Right

    Role of judiciary in welfare governance

    Implementation of RTE Act and 86th Amendment

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Equity, justice, social empowerment through education

    Essay Paper:

    Themes on Education as a Tool of Transformation, State and Social Justice, Fundamental Rights & Human Development

    UPSC Interview:

    Useful in questions on education reforms, constitutional rights, and inclusive policy

31. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1992

    ⚖ Case: Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka

    👥 Bench Strength: 2 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 21, Article 41, Article 45

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Right to education is part of the Right to Life; Capitation fees violate equality

    💬 Famous Line: “Right to education flows directly from the right to life.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Mohini Jain, a medical aspirant from Uttar Pradesh, was denied admission in a Karnataka private medical college due to her inability to pay exorbitant capitation fees. She challenged the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, claiming it allowed discriminatory access to education based on wealth.

    The case raised a larger constitutional question: Is education a Fundamental Right, and can the State permit economic barriers to it?

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Does the right to education form part of the right to life under Article 21?

    Do capitation fees violate Article 14 (equality) by creating a privileged access system?

    Is education merely a Directive Principle or an enforceable right?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court held that:

    Right to education is implicit in the right to life and dignity under Article 21

    The Constitution mandates that education must be available to all, irrespective of financial status

    Charging capitation fees makes education a commodity, violating equality under Article 14

    The Court ruled that State obligation to provide education is enforceable even without Article 21A (which was added later)

    This case was the first to recognise education as a Fundamental Right before being refined by Unni Krishnan (1993).

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Right to education is part of Article 21

    Access to education must be equal and affordable

    Profit-driven education undermines constitutional values of social justice

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Set the constitutional foundation for recognising education as a Fundamental Right

    Paved the way for Unni Krishnan (1993) and later the 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002)

    Sparked nationwide debate on capitation fees, commercialisation, and regulation of private institutions

    Became an early judicial affirmation of socio-economic rights within Fundamental Rights framework

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Educational rights and state obligations

    Constitutional ethics in welfare delivery

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Equality, justice, fairness in access to opportunity

    Essay Paper:

    Apt for topics on Education as Empowerment, Rights vs. Markets, Social Equity through State Action

    UPSC Interview:

    Useful in discussions on private education regulation, constitutional rights, and education-sector reforms

32. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) (Revisited for Basic Structure Wrap-Up)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1973

    ⚖ Case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

    👥 Bench Strength: 13 Judges (largest ever in SC history)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 13, Article 368

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Basic Structure Doctrine—Constitution is amendable, but its core cannot be altered

    💬 Famous Line: “Amend as you may, but do not destroy the Constitution’s soul.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Swami Kesavananda Bharati, head of a Kerala matha, challenged the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments passed by the Indira Gandhi government that restricted judicial review and curtailed Fundamental Rights, especially in matters of property.

    The central question: Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights? Or is there a limit to the amending power under Article 368?

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Does Parliament have unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368?

    Can Fundamental Rights and constitutional identity be altered or destroyed?

    Is there an implicit limit to the amending power, even without textual boundaries?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    By a narrow 7:6 majority, the Supreme Court held that:

    Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights

    But it cannot alter or destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution

    This doctrine is not written explicitly, but is inherent in the supremacy of the Constitution

    Key elements of the Basic Structure include:

    Supremacy of the Constitution

    Rule of Law

    Separation of Powers

    Judicial Review

    Federalism

    Secularism

    Free and Fair Elections

    Sovereignty and Democracy

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    The Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution

    The doctrine ensures the Constitution retains its identity and values across time

    It has been used to protect democracy, independence of judiciary, and fundamental rights

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Most cited and powerful constitutional doctrine in Indian legal history

    Used in landmark judgments like:

    Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

    Minerva Mills (1980)

    NJAC case (2015)

    Electoral Bonds case (2024)

    Serves as a shield against authoritarian constitutional amendments

    Reinforces that India is governed by the Constitution, not by temporary majorities

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Constitutional amendments, judicial review, limits of legislative power

    Separation of powers and rule of law

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Constitutional integrity, institutional values

    Essay Paper:

    Ideal for topics like Safeguarding the Constitution, Balance of Power in Democracy, Limits of Power in a Republic

    UPSC Interview:

    Can be referenced in debates on Constitution vs. Legislature, Emergency provisions, and democratic accountability

33. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1976

    ⚖ Case: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (also called the Habeas Corpus case)

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 21, Article 359(1), Article 226

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Controversially held that Right to Life and Liberty is suspended during Emergency

    💬 Famous Line (Criticised): “Even if a person is unlawfully detained, he has no remedy.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    During the Emergency (1975–77), the Indira Gandhi government suspended fundamental rights under Article 359. Thousands were arrested without trial. Multiple petitions were filed across High Courts challenging illegal detentions under Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA).

    The government appealed to the Supreme Court against High Court orders granting relief. The central question: Does the right to file a writ of habeas corpus survive during Emergency when Article 21 is suspended?

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Can a citizen approach the court for protection of life and liberty during Emergency?

    Is Article 21 (Right to Life) completely suspended under Article 359(1)?

    Do courts retain judicial review powers during constitutional emergencies?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    In a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court held that:

    During Emergency, Article 21 is suspended, and hence no person can move court for violation of life or liberty

    Habeas corpus petitions are not maintainable

    The executive’s actions were final, unless revoked by it or the legislature

    Justice H.R. Khanna dissented, stating: “Even in the absence of Article 21, the State has no power to deprive a person of life and liberty without the authority of law.”

    His dissent is now regarded as one of the greatest judgments in Indian constitutional history.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Majority upheld the absolute power of the executive during Emergency

    However, Justice Khanna's dissent evolved the principle that some rights are so fundamental they cannot be suspended—even during Emergency

    This judgment was later overruled in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) and repudiated by constitutional amendments

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Widely criticised as a judicial surrender to authoritarianism

    Justice Khanna’s dissent paved the way for the Basic Structure doctrine's resilience

    Led to the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978), which:

    Made Article 21 non-suspendable even during Emergency

    Restored the right to move courts for unlawful detention

    Today, ADM Jabalpur is remembered as a constitutional cautionary tale

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Emergency provisions, judicial independence, constitutional safeguards

    Role of dissent in constitutional democracy

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Courage, integrity, constitutional morality (Justice Khanna's stance)

    Essay Paper:

    Ideal for essays on Safeguarding Liberty, Power and Accountability, Lessons from the Emergency

    UPSC Interview:

    Can be referenced in discussions on Emergency, balance of power, or ethical leadership in judiciary

34. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1975

    ⚖ Case: Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 329(b), Article 368, Representation of the People Act, 1951

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Judicial review of elections cannot be curtailed; Rule of law and free elections are part of the Basic Structure

    💬 Famous Line: “Democracy is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Raj Narain, a political opponent, challenged Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s 1971 election victory, alleging corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act. In 1975, the Allahabad High Court found her guilty, declared her election void, and barred her from holding any elected office for six years.

    The verdict triggered the declaration of Emergency and a constitutional amendment (39th Amendment) that sought to remove judicial review over elections to the posts of President, Prime Minister, and Speaker.

    Indira Gandhi challenged the High Court verdict in the Supreme Court.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Can Parliament amend the Constitution to exempt certain elections from judicial scrutiny?

    Does the 39th Amendment violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution?

    Is free and fair election a Fundamental Right or a basic feature of democracy?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court struck down Clause 4 of the 39th Amendment, holding that:

    Free and fair elections are an essential part of democracy, which is part of the Basic Structure

    Judicial review is a cornerstone of the Constitution, and cannot be eliminated even through constitutional amendments

    Parliament cannot use Article 368 to immunise certain actions from judicial scrutiny, especially those affecting democratic legitimacy

    The rest of the amendment (changing election procedure retrospectively) was allowed to stand only with strict limitations.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Judicial review, rule of law, and free elections are part of the Basic Structure

    Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited

    Democracy is not just a political principle but a constitutional guarantee

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    This judgment fortified the Basic Structure Doctrine laid down in Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

    It reaffirmed the supremacy of constitutional values over political expediency

    Reinforced the independence of the judiciary, especially during times of constitutional crisis

    Played a key role in post-Emergency legal and institutional reforms

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Electoral laws, separation of powers, constitutional amendments

    Judiciary as a check on legislative overreach

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Institutional integrity, courage, checks and balances

    Essay Paper:

    Apt for themes like Democracy and Constitution, Limits of Power, Judicial Independence

    UPSC Interview:

    Relevant in discussions on emergency history, role of judiciary, and electoral reforms

35. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1980

    ⚖ Case: Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 19, Article 31C, Article 368

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of Basic Structure

    💬 Famous Line: “Limited amending power is itself a basic feature of the Constitution.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    In the aftermath of the Emergency (1975–77), the 42nd Constitutional Amendment was enacted, which:

    Gave primacy to Directive Principles (Part IV) over Fundamental Rights (Part III)

    Declared that any amendment to the Constitution could not be questioned in any court

    Expanded Parliament’s amending powers drastically

    Minerva Mills, a textile mill taken over under nationalisation laws, challenged the amendment on the grounds that it damaged the basic structure and undermined judicial review.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Can Directive Principles override Fundamental Rights completely under Article 31C (as amended by the 42nd Amendment)?

    Is Parliament’s amending power unlimited under Article 368?

    Does eliminating judicial review violate the Constitution’s basic structure?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court struck down sections of the 42nd Amendment, ruling that:

    Limited power of Parliament to amend the Constitution is part of the Basic Structure

    Harmonious balance between Part III and Part IV is essential—neither can override the other completely

    Clause 4 and 5 of Article 368, which barred courts from reviewing constitutional amendments, were unconstitutional

    The expansion of Article 31C to cover all Directive Principles (not just Article 39(b) and (c)) was invalid

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution

    Balance between rights and socio-economic goals is fundamental

    Parliament’s amending power is not absolute and cannot destroy basic features like freedom and equality

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine and judicial supremacy

    Curbed the excesses of the Emergency-era amendments

    Protected Fundamental Rights from being overridden by Directive Principles

    Became a cornerstone for constitutional balance between liberty and justice

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Constitutional amendments, Fundamental Rights vs. Directive Principles

    Role of judiciary in upholding constitutional limits

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Constitutional morality, justice, balancing rights and duties

    Essay Paper:

    Themes on Freedom vs. Welfare, Safeguarding the Constitution, Limits of State Power

    UPSC Interview:

    Important for questions on amendments, constitutionalism, and public policy vs. individual rights

36. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1994

    ⚖ Case: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 9 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 356, Article 74, Article 163, Article 365

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Secularism is part of Basic Structure; President’s Rule is subject to judicial review

    💬 Famous Line: “The federal character of the Constitution cannot be eroded by political misuse of power.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    This case stemmed from the dismissal of multiple state governments, including that of S.R. Bommai in Karnataka, under Article 356, often on politically motivated grounds. States claimed that President’s Rule was being imposed without proper constitutional justification, bypassing the democratic mandate.

    The petitions challenged whether the President’s decision to dissolve a state assembly was beyond judicial scrutiny.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Is the President’s proclamation under Article 356 subject to judicial review?

    Can the Centre dissolve state governments without first testing majority on the floor of the House?

    Is secularism part of the Basic Structure, and can its violation by a state government justify Article 356?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    In a unanimous and historic decision, the Court ruled that:

    President’s Rule under Article 356 is not absolute—judicial review is permitted

    The floor of the Assembly is the only valid forum to test majority, not the Governor’s opinion

    Misuse of Article 356 to dismiss opposition-led governments is unconstitutional

    Secularism is a Basic Feature of the Constitution; any state action that violates secular principles can justify intervention—but only with strict scrutiny

    Federalism is part of the Basic Structure; Centre cannot act arbitrarily

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Judicial review of emergency powers, including Article 356

    Secularism and federalism reaffirmed as Basic Structure

    Governor's role is limited and bound by constitutional propriety

    Floor test is mandatory before recommending President’s Rule

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Curbed the arbitrary dismissal of state governments

    Led to significant reduction in misuse of Article 356 post-1994

    Strengthened the concept of cooperative federalism and Centre-State balance

    Became the gold standard in evaluating constitutional crises and political dismissals

    Frequently cited in cases involving Centre-State relations, federal disputes, and secularism

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Federalism, Centre-State relations, role of Governor, Article 356

    Constitutional checks and balances

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Integrity in constitutional offices, neutrality, misuse of power

    Essay Paper:

    Apt for themes like Strengthening Federalism, Democracy and the Constitution, Misuse of Emergency Powers

    UPSC Interview:

    Useful in questions on Sarkaria Commission, Governor's role, emergency provisions, and political federalism

37. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2015

    ⚖ Case: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 124, Article 217, Article 50; 99th Constitutional Amendment Act

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Independence of judiciary is part of Basic Structure; NJAC struck down

    💬 Famous Line: “Independence of the judiciary is sacrosanct and inviolable.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    In 2014, Parliament passed the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, seeking to replace the Collegium System with a more transparent and broad-based method for appointing judges.

    The NJAC proposed inclusion of the Law Minister and two “eminent persons” in the judicial appointment process. Legal professionals and civil society groups challenged the new law, arguing that it compromised the independence of the judiciary by allowing executive interference.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Does the NJAC Act violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution, especially judicial independence?

    Can the executive have a significant role in appointing judges to High Courts and the Supreme Court?

    Is the Collegium system flawed yet constitutionally entrenched?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Court, by a 4:1 majority, struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional, holding that:

    The independence of the judiciary is a part of the Basic Structure and cannot be compromised

    Inclusion of the executive and external members in judicial appointments undermines this independence

    Though the Collegium system needs reform, the solution cannot violate constitutional essentials

    Justice Chelameswar dissented, supporting NJAC and criticising lack of transparency in the Collegium

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Judicial appointments must be insulated from executive control

    Basic Structure Doctrine prohibits dilution of separation of powers and independence of judiciary

    Constitutional reform must not destroy constitutional identity

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Reinstated the Collegium system for appointing judges

    Sparked nationwide debate on judicial transparency and accountability

    Led to procedural changes like the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointments

    Reaffirmed the supremacy of Basic Structure over even constitutional amendments

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Judicial independence, separation of powers, NJAC vs. Collegium

    Role of judiciary in protecting constitutional integrity

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Institutional autonomy, ethics in appointments, public trust

    Essay Paper:

    Apt for essays on Judicial Reforms, Balance of Power, Strengthening Institutions in a Democracy

    UPSC Interview:

    Useful in debates on Collegium transparency, judicial reforms, and balancing autonomy with accountability

38. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1950

    ⚖ Case: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras

    👥 Bench Strength: 6 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 21, Article 22, Article 19

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Early narrow interpretation of Article 21; Procedure established by law ≠ due process (later overruled)

    💬 Famous Line: “If the law is valid, the deprivation is valid.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and challenged his detention on the grounds that it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19, 21, and 22.

    The central issue was whether “procedure established by law” under Article 21 required just, fair, and reasonable law, or merely any validly enacted law, even if arbitrary.

    This was India’s first major constitutional case interpreting personal liberty and state power.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Does Article 21 include the principle of due process?

    Can a person be deprived of liberty based on a valid law, even if it is arbitrary or unjust?

    Should Fundamental Rights be read in harmony, or are they mutually exclusive?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court ruled:

    “Procedure established by law” in Article 21 does not imply American-style due process

    If a law is enacted by the legislature, and proper procedure is followed, liberty can be curtailed

    The Court treated each fundamental right as separate, refusing to read Articles 19 and 21 together

    This interpretation gave the State wide powers over personal liberty

    Justice Fazl Ali dissented, advocating for due process and harmonious reading of rights, a view later accepted in Maneka Gandhi (1978).

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Established the “procedure established by law” as narrow and literal

    Denied the interlinking of fundamental rights (a position later reversed)

    Revealed early judicial deference to legislative authority over individual liberty

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    The judgment was widely criticised for allowing arbitrary deprivation of liberty

    Was effectively overruled in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which held that laws under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable

    Marked a foundational debate on civil liberties and the role of judiciary

    Serves as a historical benchmark in the evolution of Article 21 jurisprudence

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Evolution of Article 21, liberty jurisprudence, preventive detention

    Role of dissent in constitutional interpretation

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Rule of law, liberty vs. state power, judicial responsibility

    Essay Paper:

    Apt for themes on Civil Liberties in Constitutional Democracy, Due Process vs. Procedure Established by Law

    UPSC Interview:

    Useful for questions on preventive detention, liberty in times of state action, early constitutional debates

39. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1978

    ⚖ Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 7 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 19, Article 21

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Due Process is part of Article 21; Fundamental Rights are interlinked

    💬 Famous Line: “No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except by a just, fair and reasonable law.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The case began when Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government under the Passport Act, 1967, without giving any reason or a chance to be heard. She filed a writ petition alleging violation of her Fundamental Rights, particularly the right to personal liberty and travel abroad under Article 21.

    This case became a turning point in reinterpreting personal liberty, especially post-Emergency.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Can a law curtailing liberty be arbitrary or unjust if passed by Parliament?

    Is Article 21 limited to “procedure established by law” or must that procedure be just, fair, and reasonable?

    Are Articles 14, 19, and 21 mutually exclusive, or should they be read together?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court unanimously ruled:

    Article 21 is not satisfied by any law; it must be reasonable, just, and fair

    The procedure under Article 21 must meet the standards of Articles 14 and 19

    Fundamental Rights form an integrated scheme; they cannot be read in isolation

    The right to travel abroad, while not explicitly listed, is part of personal liberty

    This overruled A.K. Gopalan (1950) and became a cornerstone for civil liberties jurisprudence.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Due process of law is now implied in “procedure established by law” under Article 21

    Rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interconnected and mutually reinforcing

    Laws impacting liberty must pass tests of non-arbitrariness, fairness, and reasonableness

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Significantly expanded the scope of Article 21 to include rights like:

    Right to travel

    Right to privacy

    Right to legal aid

    Right to a fair trial

    Became the foundation for modern rights jurisprudence in India

    Cited in landmark rulings like Puttaswamy (2017) and Anuradha Bhasin (2020)

    Marked the judiciary’s return to activism after the Emergency

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Evolution of Fundamental Rights

    Role of judiciary in protecting liberty

    Constitutional safeguards against state overreach

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Fairness, justice, integrity of institutions

    Essay Paper:

    Excellent for topics on Liberty and Governance, Justice and Rights in a Democracy, Judicial Role in Protecting Citizens

    UPSC Interview:

    Relevant in discussions on due process, liberty vs. national interest, and judicial interpretation

40. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2018

    ⚖ Case: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 15, Article 19(1)(a), Article 21

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Decriminalisation of consensual homosexuality; Constitutional morality over societal morality

    💬 Famous Line: “History owes an apology to the LGBTQ+ community.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The case challenged Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature,” effectively criminalising consensual homosexual acts. Although the Delhi High Court decriminalised it in 2009, the Supreme Court reversed that in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013).

    A group of LGBTQ+ activists, including classical dancer Navtej Johar, filed a fresh writ petition, invoking constitutional rights to dignity, equality, privacy, and freedom.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Does Section 377 violate the right to equality, dignity, and personal liberty?

    Can the state criminalise private, consensual sexual acts between adults?

    Should courts be guided by constitutional morality or popular morality?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Court unanimously held that:

    Section 377 is unconstitutional to the extent it criminalises consensual sex between adults of the same gender

    Sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of identity, and its expression is protected under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21

    Privacy, dignity, and autonomy are central to the idea of constitutional democracy

    Popular societal morality cannot dictate constitutional rights

    Justice D.Y. Chandrachud famously described the earlier Suresh Kumar Koushal verdict as a "retrograde step" and upheld constitutional morality as the guiding principle for rights-based interpretation.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Right to sexuality, identity, and orientation is protected under the Constitution

    Constitutional morality > societal prejudice

    Emphasis on transformative constitutionalism—the Constitution must evolve to protect the marginalised

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Decriminalised homosexuality, marking a watershed moment for LGBTQ+ rights in India

    Set the foundation for further debates on civil rights, marriage equality, and anti-discrimination laws

    Reinforced the right to privacy laid down in Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

    Became a global benchmark for human rights jurisprudence in post-colonial democracies

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Fundamental Rights, constitutional morality, human rights law

    Transformative role of judiciary

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Dignity, justice, empathy, respect for diversity

    Essay Paper:

    Apt for essays on Inclusion in Democracy, Evolution of Rights, Justice for the Marginalised

    UPSC Interview:

    Relevant for discussions on LGBTQ+ rights, role of judiciary in social reform, or constitutional transformation

41. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2018

    ⚖ Case: Joseph Shine v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 15(1), Article 21

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Struck down Section 497 IPC; marital status does not limit dignity or autonomy

    💬 Famous Line: “The law treats a woman as a property of her husband — that is manifestly arbitrary.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Section 497 of the IPC criminalised adultery—if a man had consensual sex with a married woman without her husband’s consent, the man could be punished, but the woman could not. It treated women as passive subjects, reinforcing patriarchal notions of marriage.

    Joseph Shine, a non-resident Keralite, filed a Public Interest Litigation arguing that the provision violated gender equality and individual dignity.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Does Section 497 violate Article 14 (equality) and Article 15 (non-discrimination)?

    Can criminal law be used to enforce sexual fidelity in marriage?

    Does the provision treat women as subordinates and property?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Court unanimously struck down Section 497, holding that:

    It violated Articles 14 and 15 by treating men and women unequally and reinforcing gender stereotypes

    It violated Article 21 by denying women autonomy, dignity, and privacy

    Criminal law cannot regulate morality within a consensual adult relationship, especially not in a patriarchal, one-sided manner

    Justice Chandrachud emphasized that "husbands are not the masters of wives"

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Gender equality and dignity override patriarchal laws

    Marriage does not curtail constitutional rights of women

    The State cannot criminalize private moral failings unless it harms society at large

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Decriminalised adultery, but did not legalise it—still valid grounds for divorce

    Reinforced the Constitution’s commitment to gender justice

    Sparked discussions on marital autonomy, privacy in relationships, and the limits of criminal law

    Used alongside Navtej Johar and Puttaswamy to develop progressive rights jurisprudence

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Gender justice, personal liberty, legal reform

    Role of judiciary in removing discriminatory laws

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Respect for dignity, equality in private and public spheres

    Essay Paper:

    Suitable for themes on Women’s Rights in Law, Morality and the Constitution, Modernising Legal Frameworks

    UPSC Interview:

    Useful in discussions on criminal law reforms, equality in marriage, and role of the judiciary in social change

42. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017 – Privacy Case)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2017

    ⚖ Case: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 9 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 19, Article 21

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21

    💬 Famous Line: “Privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Justice (Retd.) K.S. Puttaswamy filed a PIL challenging the Aadhaar scheme, arguing that it violated the right to privacy, especially in the absence of a statutory framework.

    Earlier judgments like M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) had held that privacy was not a fundamental right.

    Given the conflict and implications for Aadhaar, surveillance, and data collection, a 9-judge bench was constituted to answer whether privacy is a Fundamental Right.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Is the right to privacy protected under Article 21?

    Can State action, including surveillance and data collection, violate privacy without infringing the Constitution?

    How should privacy be balanced with legitimate state interests like welfare delivery and national security?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court unanimously held:

    Right to privacy is a Fundamental Right, flowing from Articles 14, 19, and 21

    Overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh

    Privacy includes:

    Bodily autonomy

    Informational privacy

    Decisional freedom (e.g., reproductive and sexual rights)

    Any restriction on privacy must be backed by law, have a legitimate state aim, and be proportionate

    The Court emphasized constitutional morality, and said privacy is intrinsic to liberty, dignity, and democracy.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Privacy is not an elitist concern, but central to freedom and dignity

    Introduced three-fold test: Legality, Legitimate Aim, and Proportionality

    Set the stage for India’s data protection and surveillance jurisprudence

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Became the foundation of modern rights jurisprudence, influencing:

    Navtej Johar (LGBTQ+ rights)

    Joseph Shine (marital privacy)

    Aadhaar judgment (2018)

    Paved the way for Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

    Reinforced that state power must be restrained by individual dignity and autonomy

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Fundamental Rights evolution, digital rights, surveillance debates

    Balance between individual rights and state interests

    GS Paper 3:

    Cyber security, data governance, legal frameworks

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Autonomy, consent, ethical governance in tech

    Essay Paper:

    Suitable for themes like Technology and Freedom, Digital India and Constitutional Values, Human Dignity in the Information Age

    UPSC Interview:

    Highly relevant in discussions on right to privacy, data protection, national security, and digital identity

43. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2018

    ⚖ Case: Common Cause v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 21

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Right to die with dignity is part of Right to Life; Passive euthanasia and Living Will recognised

    💬 Famous Line: “The right to life includes the right to die with dignity.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Common Cause, an NGO, filed a PIL seeking recognition of the right to make a Living Will and the legality of passive euthanasia in cases of terminal illness or irreversible vegetative state. The case was inspired by previous rulings, including the Aruna Shanbaug case (2011), where passive euthanasia was allowed in a limited form.

    The Court had to examine if Article 21 could be interpreted to include the right to refuse treatment and die with dignity.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Does the Right to Life under Article 21 include the Right to Die with dignity?

    Can individuals refuse life-prolonging treatment through a Living Will?

    Should the State allow passive euthanasia under strict conditions?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court unanimously held that:

    Right to die with dignity is a Fundamental Right under Article 21

    Passive euthanasia is legally permissible under specific safeguards

    Individuals have a right to make an Advance Medical Directive (Living Will), laying down their wishes for end-of-life care

    The Court issued detailed guidelines on how Living Wills should be executed, reviewed, and implemented until a law is enacted

    The judgment distinguished between passive euthanasia (withdrawal of treatment) and active euthanasia (deliberate causing of death), allowing only the former.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Right to life includes quality of life and dignity till the very end

    Consent and autonomy are core components of personal liberty

    Introduced a legal framework for Living Wills, balancing compassion and ethical safeguards

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    First Indian case to recognise Living Wills and passive euthanasia constitutionally

    Brought India in line with global human rights standards on end-of-life care

    Sparked medical, legal, and ethical debates about death, dignity, and palliative care

    Influenced policy discussions on terminal illness management and patient autonomy

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Right to life and constitutional interpretation

    Health policy, legal-ethical framework for end-of-life care

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Autonomy, compassion, medical ethics, human dignity

    Essay Paper:

    Apt for themes like Ethics of Life and Death, Dignity in Healthcare, Law, Morality, and Humanity

    UPSC Interview:

    Useful in questions on medical ethics, constitutional rights, and public policy

44. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1978

    ⚖ Case: Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani

    👥 Bench Strength: 2 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 20(3), Article 21; Section 161 CrPC

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Right against self-incrimination extends to police interrogation and includes the right to silence

    💬 Famous Line: “No person shall be compelled to answer questions which may incriminate them.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Nandini Satpathy, a former Chief Minister of Odisha, was summoned for police questioning related to corruption charges. She refused to answer many questions, citing her right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

    The authorities sought to prosecute her for refusal to cooperate. This raised vital questions about the scope of protection under Article 20(3) and the rights of accused persons during police interrogation.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Does the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) apply before formal charges are framed?

    Can a person refuse to answer police questions that may lead to self-incrimination?

    Is there a right to legal counsel during interrogation?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Nandini Satpathy and held that:

    Article 20(3) protects an individual from being compelled to answer questions that may incriminate them, even at the investigative stage

    The right includes the right to silence during police interrogation

    Accused persons have the right to consult a lawyer, even during preliminary questioning

    This right extends to witnesses if they are likely to become accused

    Justice Krishna Iyer authored a landmark judgment affirming that dignity and rights do not dissolve under police scrutiny.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Protection against self-incrimination is not confined to courtroom settings

    The right to silence is fundamental and tied to the Right to Life and Dignity (Article 21)

    Police procedures must align with constitutional safeguards

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Strengthened criminal jurisprudence and the rights of the accused

    Often cited in cases involving custodial interrogation and due process

    Helped shape the CrPC reforms and the rights-based approach to police investigations

    Remains central to debates on torture, coercion, and forced confessions

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Criminal justice system, constitutional safeguards for the accused

    Role of judiciary in protecting individual liberties

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Justice, fairness, dignity in enforcement

    Essay Paper:

    Apt for essays on Rights of the Accused, Liberty vs. Security, Due Process in a Democracy

    UPSC Interview:

    Useful in questions on custodial rights, Article 20(3), or balancing investigation with constitutional ethics

45. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)

    🔹 1. Prelims Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)

    🗂 Category: Right to Life & Euthanasia Debate (Precursor to Common Cause)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1996

    ⚖ Case: Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 21

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Right to die is not a part of Right to Life; paved the way for distinction between suicide and passive euthanasia

    💬 Famous Line: “Right to life is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination of life.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Gian Kaur and her husband were convicted under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) after encouraging her daughter-in-law to take her own life. They challenged the constitutional validity of Section 309 IPC, which criminalised attempted suicide, arguing that right to die was part of Article 21, based on the precedent set in P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994).

    This case gave the Court an opportunity to revisit and clarify whether Article 21 includes the right to die.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Is the right to die included under the Right to Life (Article 21)?

    Does criminalising attempt to suicide (Section 309 IPC) violate the Constitution?

    Can euthanasia or assisted suicide be constitutionally permitted?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Court overruled P. Rathinam (1994) and held that:

    Right to life does not include the right to die

    Section 309 IPC is constitutionally valid, as the State has an interest in preserving life

    However, the Court acknowledged that the right to die with dignity in terminal illness is a different issue, not to be confused with suicide

    This distinction later formed the basis for allowing passive euthanasia in Common Cause (2018)

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Right to life is a positive, life-affirming right, not a right to end life arbitrarily

    However, the Court opened the door to considering end-of-life dignity under specific circumstances

    Reaffirmed that mental health, suicide, and state duty require sensitive treatment

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Reinstated the criminality of suicide attempts (later diluted by Mental Healthcare Act, 2017)

    Served as a precursor to passive euthanasia jurisprudence in Aruna Shanbaug (2011) and Common Cause (2018)

    Clarified the moral distinction between suicide and medically-assisted dying

    Influenced national policy discussions on euthanasia, palliative care, and patient rights

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Right to life, euthanasia, health and legal policy

    Article 21 jurisprudence and criminal law reform

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Dignity in death, legal vs. moral rights, compassion

    Essay Paper:

    Apt for essays on Death and Dignity, Limits of State Power in Personal Choices, Healthcare Ethics

    UPSC Interview:

    Useful for questions on end-of-life care, suicide law reform, and patient autonomy

46. State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1976

    ⚖ Case: State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas

    👥 Bench Strength: 7 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 16(1), Article 16(4)

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Affirmative action is not an exception but a facet of equality; substantive equality over formal equality

    💬 Famous Line: “Equality is not merely a formal declaration—it must include real and effective access.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    In this case, the Kerala government amended service rules to give relaxation in qualifying exams for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) candidates already employed in government service.

    N.M. Thomas, a general category officer, challenged the provision as discriminatory under Article 14 and 16(1), claiming it gave unfair advantage to SC/ST employees in promotions.

    The Court had to address whether such in-service benefits for backward classes violated the equality principle.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Is relaxation of service rules for SC/ST candidates a violation of Articles 14 and 16(1)?

    Is affirmative action under Article 16(4) an exception to equality or a part of it?

    Should equality be interpreted formally or substantively?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The majority upheld the Kerala Government's move and ruled:

    Affirmative action is a positive facet of equality, not a violation of it

    Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1), but an extension of the equality principle

    Formal equality (same treatment for all) is not sufficient in a society with structural inequalities

    Substantive equality, which addresses historical disadvantages, is constitutionally valid and essential

    Justice Krishna Iyer’s opinion strongly advocated for justice-sensitive equality, especially in the context of caste and socio-economic disadvantage.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Substantive equality > formal equality

    Article 16(4) is a part of the equality code, not a deviation from it

    State can take positive measures within employment to equalise opportunities for disadvantaged groups

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Strengthened the constitutional legitimacy of reservations and service relaxations

    Shifted the judicial view toward substantive, justice-oriented interpretations of equality

    Influenced later judgments like Indra Sawhney (1992) and M. Nagaraj (2006)

    Widely cited in policy debates on in-service promotions, quota benefits, and merit vs. justice

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Equality jurisprudence, affirmative action, social justice

    Reservation in public employment and constitutional interpretation

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Equity vs. equality, distributive justice, social upliftment

    Essay Paper:

    Suitable for themes like Justice in a Hierarchical Society, Reservation and Equality, Access vs. Advantage

    UPSC Interview:

    Useful in discussions on reservation, social reform policies, and balancing merit with social justice

47. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2006

    ⚖ Case: M. Nagaraj v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 16(4A), Article 16(4B), Article 335

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Reservation in promotions is constitutionally valid but subject to strict conditions

    💬 Famous Line: “The State must demonstrate backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and maintenance of administrative efficiency.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Constitutional Amendments allowed reservation in promotions for SCs/STs and relaxed rules on consequential seniority and efficiency. These amendments were challenged on the grounds that they violated the Basic Structure, especially equality and merit in public employment.

    The petitioners argued that such amendments eroded Article 14 and diluted administrative efficiency.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Can the State provide reservation in promotions under Article 16(4A) without violating the equality principle?

    Are the amendments allowing promotion quota subject to judicial review and constitutional limits?

    How should the State balance social justice and efficiency in administration?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendments but laid down three key conditions (often called the “M. Nagaraj Tests”):

    The State must collect quantifiable data to prove:

    Backwardness of the group

    Inadequacy of representation in services

    The measure must not affect administrative efficiency (Article 335)

    The principle of equality must be preserved; excessive reservation is not permitted

    Thus, reservation in promotion is not automatic—it requires careful constitutional justification.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Reservation in promotions is valid, but subject to constitutional balance

    The State has to justify affirmative action with data

    Efficiency, equality, and social justice must be harmonised

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Led to States conducting empirical studies before granting promotions with reservation

    Served as a constitutional check on blanket promotional quotas

    Continues to guide legal scrutiny in cases like Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)

    Reinforced that affirmative action must be evidence-based, not political

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Reservation in promotion, equality vs. social justice, constitutional amendments

    Balance between empowerment and meritocracy

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Fairness, administrative ethics, justice and data-driven policy

    Essay Paper:

    Themes like Reservation and Responsibility, Measuring Equality, Constitutionalism in Practice

    UPSC Interview:

    Useful in discussions on affirmative action, service reforms, and evolving reservation policies

48. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1992

    ⚖ Case: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal Commission Case)

    👥 Bench Strength: 9 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 16(4), Article 340

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: 50% ceiling on reservation; exclusion of creamy layer; reservation not allowed in promotions

    💬 Famous Line: “Equality is not only for the privileged. It is for the deprived too.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Following the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, the V.P. Singh government implemented 27% OBC reservation in Central Government jobs. This move led to nationwide protests and legal challenges.

    Petitioners questioned the validity of caste-based reservations for OBCs and the expansion of affirmative action beyond SCs/STs.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Does caste constitute a valid basis for identifying backward classes under Article 16(4)?

    Is the reservation cap of 50% constitutionally mandated?

    Can reservation be extended to promotions and creamy layer OBCs?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Court upheld the constitutionality of OBC reservations but with key restrictions:

    Caste can be a basis for identifying backwardness, but economic criteria alone is not sufficient

    Imposed a 50% ceiling on total reservations, with rare exceptions

    Introduced the concept of “creamy layer” exclusion—wealthier and socially advanced members of backward classes must be excluded from quota benefits

    Reservation in promotions was disallowed (later partially allowed by constitutional amendments and subsequent cases)

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Creamy layer doctrine—reservation benefits must go to the truly disadvantaged

    Reservation is not a right, but a tool to promote equality

    50% ceiling ensures balance between merit and affirmative action

    No reservation in promotions, unless backed by data and constitutional provisions

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Set the template for OBC reservations in jobs and education

    Widely seen as the most significant judgment on affirmative action policy in India

    Influenced creation of National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC)

    Basis for legal debate in M. Nagaraj (2006) and Jarnail Singh (2018)

    Reinforced that reservation is a means to ensure substantive equality, not a blanket privilege

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Reservation policy, constitutional equality, caste and social justice

    Interpretation of Article 16(4) and 340

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Fairness, equity, balancing justice with efficiency

    Essay Paper:

    Ideal for themes like Social Justice in a Caste Society, Affirmative Action and Constitutionalism, Inclusive Governance

    UPSC Interview:

    Useful for questions on caste census, creamy layer debates, and current affirmative action policies

49. Vishnu Bhagwan v. State of Haryana (1980)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1980

    ⚖ Case: Vishnu Bhagwan v. State of Haryana

    👥 Bench Strength: 2 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 311, Principles of Natural Justice

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Even if not expressly mentioned, natural justice must be read into administrative decisions affecting rights

    💬 Famous Line: “No man shall be condemned unheard.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Vishnu Bhagwan, a civil servant in Haryana, was dismissed from service without being given a proper opportunity to be heard. He challenged the dismissal, claiming that the principles of natural justice were violated, even though the rules did not explicitly mandate a hearing.

    The case raised a foundational question:

    Can administrative action affecting a person’s livelihood be upheld without adhering to natural justice, even if not expressly required by statute?

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Is the right to be heard (audi alteram partem) applicable to administrative orders under Article 311?

    Can statutory silence override constitutional fairness?

    Should natural justice be read into all procedures that affect a person’s rights or livelihood?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the petitioner, holding that:

    Natural justice is implicit in every administrative action that affects rights, unless expressly excluded for valid and compelling reasons

    Dismissal without opportunity to be heard violates the principle of audi alteram partem

    Constitutional protections under Article 311 require fair procedure, including a hearing

    Even if rules are silent, justice must not be denied

    This ruling reinforced the foundational role of fairness in administrative law.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Audi alteram partem (hear the other side) is a core principle in administrative justice

    Natural justice cannot be bypassed by technical or procedural silence

    Fairness is constitutionally embedded in Article 14 and 311

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Became a key precedent in service law and administrative fairness

    Continues to guide courts in cases of dismissals, suspensions, and departmental inquiries

    Helped institutionalise due process within public administration

    Strengthened the constitutional conscience of procedural fairness

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Civil services conduct rules, Article 311, natural justice

    Administrative law and rule of law

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Fairness in decision-making, institutional ethics, justice in public service

    Essay Paper:

    Useful for themes like Justice as Fairness, Constitutional Governance, Ethics in Administration

    UPSC Interview:

    Relevant for questions on disciplinary procedures, due process, or ethical governance

50. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1997

    ⚖ Case: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 7 Judges (Constitution Bench)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 32, Article 226, Article 323A, Article 323B

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Power of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 is part of Basic Structure and cannot be ousted by tribunals

    💬 Famous Line: “Judicial review is the heart and soul of the Constitution.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The case arose from challenges to the Constitutional validity of Articles 323A and 323B, and certain provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which excluded High Courts and the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in service and administrative matters.

    The petitioner argued that excluding judicial review of tribunal decisions by constitutional courts violated the Basic Structure, especially the principle of rule of law and separation of powers.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    Can Parliament exclude the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court in administrative matters through Tribunals?

    Is judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 a part of the Basic Structure?

    What is the role and status of tribunals vis-à-vis constitutional courts?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment:

    Power of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 is part of the Basic Structure

    Tribunals cannot be substitutes for High Courts; their decisions are subject to scrutiny by the High Court

    The exclusion clauses in Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) were held unconstitutional

    Tribunals can function as courts of first instance, but constitutional courts must retain supervisory jurisdiction

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    Judicial review is inviolable and integral to the Constitution

    Parliament cannot remove the supervisory role of High Courts and the Supreme Court

    Administrative Tribunals are subject to constitutional checks, ensuring the rule of law

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    Reasserted the authority of constitutional courts over tribunal systems

    Led to reforms in tribunal structures, accountability, and appeals

    Strengthened the protection of Fundamental Rights through judicial access

    Frequently cited in debates on tribunalisation of justice, especially with the Finance Act, 2017 and Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    GS Paper 2:

    Judicial review, tribunals, separation of powers

    Role of High Courts and constitutional safeguards

    GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    Rule of law, independence of institutions, accountability mechanisms

    Essay Paper:

    Apt for themes on Access to Justice, Democratic Institutions, Constitutional Supremacy

    UPSC Interview:

    Relevant for discussions on tribunal reforms, pendency, judicial reach, and fundamental rights

51. Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1993

    ⚖ Case: Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 21, Article 41, Article 45, Article 46

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Right to Education is a fundamental right under Article 21 up to age 14

    💬 Famous Line: “The right to education flows directly from the right to life.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The case involved private professional colleges charging exorbitant fees and donations in the absence of proper regulation. Petitioner Unnikrishnan J.P. challenged the commercialisation of education and denial of access to the economically weaker sections.

    The Court had to decide:

    • Whether education is merely a Directive Principle (non-justiciable) or a part of enforceable Fundamental Rights

    • Can the State allow unregulated private profiteering in essential public services like education?

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Is Right to Education an enforceable right under Article 21?

    • Can private institutions charge capitation fees and remain outside regulatory control?

    • How do Directive Principles (Articles 41, 45, 46) shape the interpretation of Article 21?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court held that:

    • Right to Education is a part of the Right to Life under Article 21

    • The State is duty-bound to provide free and compulsory education up to 14 years of age

    • Education beyond that level must be regulated to prevent commercial exploitation

    • The Court laid down a fee structure and admission procedure (Unnikrishnan Scheme) for private professional colleges to ensure equity and transparency

    This decision was a major step towards Article 21A, which was inserted later by the 86th Constitutional Amendment in 2002.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Education is essential to live with dignity and freedom

    • Directive Principles can inform and strengthen Fundamental Rights

    • Private education must be regulated to uphold constitutional values

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Paved the way for Article 21A: Right to Education (inserted in 2002)

    • Triggered the Regulation of Private Educational Institutions

    • Influenced the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act)

    • Unnikrishnan Scheme was later replaced, but the judgment remains a landmark in socio-economic rights

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Education rights, constitutional amendments, role of State

    • Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights interaction

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Social equity, distributive justice, regulating private interest

    • Essay Paper:

    • Themes like Education as a Tool for Empowerment, Balancing Public and Private Interests

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Useful in questions on NEP 2020, RTE Act, or education reforms

52. In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary (2012)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2012

    ⚖ Case: In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 2 Judges

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(b), Article 21

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right; use of excessive police force is unconstitutional

    💬 Famous Line: “Freedom of speech, assembly, and peaceful protest are the lifeblood of democracy.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    In June 2011, yoga guru Baba Ramdev organised a peaceful protest at Ramlila Maidan, Delhi, against black money and corruption.

    At midnight, the police disrupted the assembly using lathicharge and tear gas, citing Section 144 CrPC. Several people were injured.

    The suo motu case raised concerns about state response to peaceful protests, the limits of police power, and the protection of civil liberties.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Does the midnight police crackdown violate the fundamental right to peaceful assembly and free speech?

    • Is use of force during peaceful protest permissible under constitutional norms?

    • Can Section 144 CrPC override Article 19 rights without due justification?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court strongly condemned the action of the police and held:

    • The protest was peaceful and within constitutional bounds

    • The use of excessive force violated Articles 19 and 21

    • Section 144 must be exercised with restraint, and cannot be a tool for silencing dissent

    • Citizens have a right to dissent and peaceful assembly, even if the State disagrees with the message

    The Court emphasised the non-negotiable nature of civil liberties in a constitutional democracy.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Peaceful protest is a constitutionally protected form of expression

    • The state cannot use disproportionate force to curb dissent

    • Law and order powers must align with constitutional freedoms

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Strengthened the jurisprudence on freedom of expression and protest

    • Frequently cited in PILs involving police excesses and misuse of Section 144

    • Reinforced judicial oversight of executive action during public protests

    • Reaffirmed that democracy thrives on dissent, not suppression

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Fundamental rights, freedom of speech, role of police, civil liberties

    • Rule of law and responsible governance

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Abuse of authority, protest ethics, fairness in law enforcement

    • Essay Paper:

    • Relevant for themes like Democracy and Dissent, Citizens’ Rights and State Power

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Useful in discussions on police reforms, right to protest, balancing order and freedom

53. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2015

    ⚖ Case: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 2 Judges (Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(2)

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Striking down of Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional

    💬 Famous Line: “Mere discussion or even advocacy of a cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a).”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalised sending “offensive” messages online.

    It was vague, overly broad, and had led to several arrests for social media posts, including two girls in Maharashtra who questioned a bandh after Bal Thackeray’s death.

    Law student Shreya Singhal filed a PIL, arguing the law violated free speech and lacked clarity on what constituted “offensive.”

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Does Section 66A violate the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a)?

    • Are its terms (“grossly offensive,” “annoyance”) vague and subjective?

    • Does it stand the test of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional and a clear violation of free speech.

    • Terms like “offensive,” “annoying,” and “inconvenient” are subjective and prone to misuse

    • Section 66A chilled speech, went beyond Article 19(2)’s reasonable restrictions, and had no proximate connection to public order or incitement

    • Vague laws that allow arbitrary arrest violate due process and legal clarity

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Overbreadth Doctrine: A law that prohibits more speech than necessary is unconstitutional

    • Vagueness Doctrine: Vague laws violate due process

    • Affirmed that free speech online = free speech offline

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Landmark victory for digital rights and civil liberties in India

    • Empowered citizens against arbitrary online censorship

    • Despite being struck down, Section 66A continues to be misused, prompting Supreme Court warnings (PUCL v. Union of India, 2021)

    • Set a precedent for future challenges to internet regulation laws

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Fundamental Rights, free speech, reasonable restrictions

    • IT Act and digital governance

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Abuse of power, ethical governance in the digital age

    • Essay Paper:

    • Relevant to themes like Liberty in the Digital Age, Free Speech and Democratic Values

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Useful for questions on internet censorship, online dissent, balancing freedom and regulation

54. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 2018

    ⚖ Case: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India

    👥 Bench Strength: 5 Judges (CJI Dipak Misra, Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, A.M. Khanwilkar, R.F. Nariman, Indu Malhotra)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 14, Article 15, Article 19, Article 21

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: Decriminalisation of homosexuality; Affirmation of Constitutional Morality

    💬 Famous Line: “History owes an apology to the members of the LGBTQ+ community.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature,” and was long used to target LGBTQ+ individuals.

    Though the Delhi High Court in 2009 decriminalised it, the 2013 Koushal judgment of the Supreme Court overturned that relief.

    In 2018, this Constitution Bench re-examined the validity of Section 377 in light of privacy (Puttaswamy case) and evolving global human rights norms.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Does Section 377 violate Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), Article 19 (expression), and Article 21 (right to life and dignity)?

    • Can the state criminalise private consensual acts between adults?

    • Should constitutional morality override societal morality?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    The Supreme Court unanimously held that:

    • Section 377 is unconstitutional to the extent it criminalises consensual sexual acts between adults

    • It violates dignity, privacy, autonomy, and equality

    • Constitutional morality must guide interpretation of rights, not popular or religious morality

    • Sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy and identity under Article 21

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Constitutional Morality: The Constitution’s principles of dignity, equality, and liberty must prevail over majoritarian views

    • Affirmed that the right to sexual orientation is a fundamental right

    • Strengthened individual autonomy and inclusiveness

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Historic decriminalisation of homosexuality in India

    • Affirmed the LGBTQ+ community’s dignity, identity, and rights

    • Boosted activism for same-sex marriage, adoption, anti-discrimination laws

    • Cited in subsequent cases and debates on civil rights and inclusivity (e.g., Supriyo v. Union of India – same-sex marriage, 2023)

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2:

    • Fundamental rights, constitutional morality, role of judiciary in social transformation

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics):

    • Inclusiveness, empathy, human dignity

    • Essay Paper:

    • Use in topics on Justice, Identity, Minorities, Social Movements

    • UPSC Interview:

    • Useful in questions on evolving rights, judicial activism, LGBTQ+ inclusion

55. Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)

    🔹 1. Prelims Snapshot (Fact Box)

    🗓 Year: 1998

    ⚖ Case: Vineet Narain v. Union of India (also known as the Jain Hawala Case)

    👥 Bench Strength: 2 Judges (Justices J.S. Verma and S.P. Bharucha)

    📘 Key Articles Involved: Article 32, Article 142, Article 21

    🧠 Doctrine Evolved: “Caged Parrot” Doctrine of CBI Independence

    💬 Famous Line: “The need of the hour is to insulate investigative agencies from extraneous pressures.”

    🔹 2. Context & Background

    The case arose from the Jain Hawala Diaries, which linked major politicians and bureaucrats to illegal payments from hawala operators.

    Despite credible evidence, no meaningful investigation was pursued by the CBI and other agencies.

    Journalist Vineet Narain filed a PIL under Article 32, highlighting the failure of institutional accountability and independence.

    🔹 3. Constitutional Issues Raised

    • Can the judiciary issue binding guidelines to ensure autonomy of investigative agencies?

    • What is the extent of the Supreme Court’s powers under Articles 32 and 142?

    • Can judicial intervention ensure executive accountability in corruption probes?

    🔹 4. Verdict & Ratio Decidendi

    • The Supreme Court held that the CBI and Enforcement Directorate must function free from government control in sensitive matters.

    • Issued binding guidelines until a proper legislation is enacted.

    • Mandated the establishment of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as a supervisory body over the CBI.

    • Asserted the power of the court under Article 142 to fill the legislative vacuum.

    🔹 5. Doctrine / Principle Evolved

    • Strengthened the concept of “institutional independence” of investigative agencies.

    • Reinforced the doctrine of continuing mandamus, where courts monitor compliance over time.

    • Introduced judicial checks on executive inaction in corruption cases.

    🔹 6. Impact & Legacy

    • Led to the statutory status of CVC (CVC Act, 2003)

    • Redefined the role of the CBI, which later came under scrutiny again in Alok Verma Case (2019)

    • Continues to be cited in debates around making the CBI autonomous and free from political interference

    • One of the earliest examples of the judiciary acting as an institutional watchdog

    🔹 7. Relevance for UPSC

    • GS Paper 2: Accountability mechanisms, role of constitutional bodies, checks and balances

    • GS Paper 4 (Ethics): Integrity, impartiality, public trust, whistleblowing

    • Essay Paper: Relevant for topics like Fighting Corruption, Judicial Activism, Independent Institutions

    • UPSC Interview:

    • May arise in questions on CBI reforms, judicial overreach vs. necessity, or institutional independence