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