The Supreme Court of India is the guardian of the justice and the Constitution of India. This institution has delivered a number of landmark judgements which greatly impacted all the aspects of society and governance in India. Following is a list of some of the most significant such landmark judgements. This list will be constantly updated time to time.
Golaknath v. State Of Punjab case (1967)
The Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, decided in 1967, was a significant legal milestone in India’s constitutional history. It centered on the question of whether the Indian Parliament had the authority to amend fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that Parliament did not have the power to amend fundamental rights through constitutional amendments. This decision, often referred to as the “Golaknath ruling,” asserted that fundamental rights were immune to constitutional amendments and could only be changed through a new constitutional convention or process.
However, this verdict was later partially overruled by the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973, which introduced the “basic structure doctrine.” This doctrine allowed Parliament to amend the Constitution but not alter its basic structure, ensuring a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and the protection of fundamental rights.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case (1973)
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, decided in 1973, is a pivotal judgment in Indian constitutional law. It centered on the question of whether there were any limits to Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India held that while Parliament had the authority to amend the Constitution, it could not alter its “basic structure” – the fundamental features that form the essence of the Constitution. This ruling effectively placed restrictions on the amending power of the Indian Parliament and established the “basic structure doctrine.”
Kesavananda Bharati’s case reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding its core principles. It remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence, ensuring that essential features of the Constitution remain unaltered, even through amendments.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case (1978)
The Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case, decided in 1978, marked a significant development in Indian constitutional law, specifically in the context of personal liberty and due process.
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without giving her a fair opportunity to be heard. She challenged this action, arguing that it violated her right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
In a groundbreaking judgment, the Supreme Court held that the right to personal liberty was not limited to mere physical liberty. Moreover, no person can be deprived of his/her right to life and personal liberty, except through procedures established by law. The court emphasized that any government action that affected an individual’s personal liberty had to be fair, just, and reasonable, and the principles of natural justice had to be followed.
The Maneka Gandhi case expanded the scope of Article 21 and established the principle that personal liberty could not be deprived arbitrarily, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness in government actions. This judgment has had a far-reaching impact on the protection of individual rights in India.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India case (1980)
The Minerva Mills v. Union of India case is a landmark legal judgment that took place in 1980. The case revolved around the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the 42nd Amendment Act, which sought to alter the balance of power between the Parliament and the judiciary.
In its verdict, the Supreme Court of India declared that the 42nd Amendment Act was unconstitutional as it violated the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. This case reinforced the doctrine of the basic structure, which asserts that certain core features of the Constitution are beyond the amending powers of Parliament. It also upheld the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution and protector of its essential features, ensuring a delicate balance of powers in India’s democratic system.
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum case (1985)
The Shah Bano case was a landmark legal dispute in India that revolved around the issue of Muslim women’s rights in divorce cases. Shah Bano, a Muslim woman, sought maintenance from her husband after he divorced her through triple talaq. In 1985, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Shah Bano, asserting her right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which applies to all religions. This decision triggered widespread debates about the clash between personal laws and fundamental rights.
Ultimately, the Indian government passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act in 1986 to limit the scope of the Supreme Court’s decision and appease conservative Muslim groups. The case remains significant for highlighting the complexities of personal laws and gender justice in India.
Aruna Shanbaug v. Union Of India Case (2011)
The Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India case, decided in 2011, centered on the issue of euthanasia and the right to die with dignity.
Aruna Shanbaug had been in a vegetative state for over 37 years after a brutal sexual assault left her in a coma. The case was filed by activist Pinki Virani, seeking permission for passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life support) for Aruna, arguing that her continued existence in such a state violated her right to live with dignity.
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, recognized the concept of passive euthanasia under certain conditions, laying down guidelines for its application. It stated that the decision to withdraw life support should be made by a High Court after considering the medical opinion, and only in cases where there was no hope of recovery. The Aruna Shanbaug case established an important legal precedent in India regarding end-of-life decisions and the right to die with dignity.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India [NOTA Judgement] (2013)
In the landmark NOTA (None of the Above) judgment of 2013, the Supreme Court of India ruled that voters in Indian elections have the right to reject all candidates by choosing the NOTA option on the ballot. The court held that NOTA serves as a legitimate means for voters to express their dissatisfaction with the available candidates.
The judgment clarified that the right to vote includes the right to negative voting, upholding the principle that voters should have a choice beyond simply choosing between candidates they find unsatisfactory. While NOTA doesn’t impact the outcome of the election directly, it allows citizens to register their discontent with the existing political options, promoting transparency and accountability in the electoral process.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India [Triple Talaq Verdict] (2017)
The Shayara Bano v. Union of India case, commonly referred to as the “Triple Talaq Judgment,” was a landmark legal decision in 2017. It revolved around the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-bid’ah) in Muslim personal law.
Shayara Bano, a Muslim woman, challenged the constitutionality of the practice after her husband divorced her through triple talaq via a written communication. In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that instant triple talaq was unconstitutional and violated the rights of Muslim women.
The court held that this practice was arbitrary and not an essential part of Islamic law. It effectively banned the practice, requiring Muslim men to follow a more gradual and reasonable procedure for divorce. This judgment was celebrated for advancing gender equality and protecting the rights of Muslim women in India.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union Of India [Right to Privacy Verdict] (2017)
In the landmark 2017 judgment, the Supreme Court of India declared that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under the Indian Constitution. This decision stemmed from a series of cases challenging various aspects of privacy, including issues related to Aadhaar, biometric data, and surveillance.
The court recognized privacy as an intrinsic part of individual liberty and dignity, essential for the preservation of other fundamental rights. It asserted that privacy safeguards the autonomy of an individual and is crucial in the digital age.
This ruling had far-reaching implications, influencing subsequent legal decisions and policies related to data protection, surveillance, and personal freedoms in India. It reaffirmed the importance of privacy as a cornerstone of individual rights and a bulwark against potential infringements by the state or private entities.