LANDMARK Supreme Court CASES WHICH CHANGED the INDIAN POLITY.
.
A Thread 🧵
.
#SupremeCourt
#UPSCPrelims2024
#UPSC
.
A Thread 🧵
.
#SupremeCourt
#UPSCPrelims2024
#UPSC
"State of Madras v. Champakam
Dorairajan" - 1951
• SC struck caste-based reservation
• FR is superior to DPSP.
• Led to 1st amendment
Dorairajan" - 1951
• SC struck caste-based reservation
• FR is superior to DPSP.
• Led to 1st amendment
"Shankari Prasad case" - 1951
• No judicial review to Amendments as Amendments under article 368 is not ‘law’
under article 13(2)
• Parliament has unlimited power of amendment.
• No judicial review to Amendments as Amendments under article 368 is not ‘law’
under article 13(2)
• Parliament has unlimited power of amendment.
"Balaji v/s State of Mysore"- 1962
•Reservation cannot be more than 50%
•Reservation cannot be more than 50%
"Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajashthan" - 1964
• First case in which mention of ‘Basic Structure’ was made.
• First case in which mention of ‘Basic Structure’ was made.
"Golaknath Case" - 1967
• Amendments under article 368 are ‘law’ under article 13(2) and hence can be struck down if they violate Fundamental rights
• Parliament cannot amend FR
• Amendments under article 368 are ‘law’ under article 13(2) and hence can be struck down if they violate Fundamental rights
• Parliament cannot amend FR
"Kesavananda Bharati case"-1973
• ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’
• Parliament can amend any part of constitution provided basic structure/feature of the constitution is not changed.
• ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’
• Parliament can amend any part of constitution provided basic structure/feature of the constitution is not changed.
"ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla"- 1976
•Even the RtL under art 21 can
be suspended during emergency under art 359
•Justice Hans Raj Khanna, opposed it
•The judgement was criticized as SCI failed to protect the FRs
•Through 44th CAA: FRs under art 20, 21 cannot be
suspended
•Even the RtL under art 21 can
be suspended during emergency under art 359
•Justice Hans Raj Khanna, opposed it
•The judgement was criticized as SCI failed to protect the FRs
•Through 44th CAA: FRs under art 20, 21 cannot be
suspended
"Minerva Mills case"- 1980
• Further established ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’
• Power of Parliament to amend the
constitution was limited
• Restored balance between FR and DPSP
• Further established ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’
• Power of Parliament to amend the
constitution was limited
• Restored balance between FR and DPSP
"Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India" - 1978
•‘Due Process’ doctrine : Right to life (article 21) gave SC power to judicial review of not only ‘procedure established
by law’ but also ‘ due process of law’
•‘Due Process’ doctrine : Right to life (article 21) gave SC power to judicial review of not only ‘procedure established
by law’ but also ‘ due process of law’
"Three Judges Cases":
1. SP Gupta v Union of India (1981)
2. Supreme Court Advocates‐on‐
Record Association v Union of India
(1993)
3. Re Special Reference No 1 of 1998- 1981-98
• Gave ‘Collegium system’ of Judges
appointment
1. SP Gupta v Union of India (1981)
2. Supreme Court Advocates‐on‐
Record Association v Union of India
(1993)
3. Re Special Reference No 1 of 1998- 1981-98
• Gave ‘Collegium system’ of Judges
appointment
Supreme Court Advocates-on-record
Association & Anr. vs. Union of India - 2015
•Called the 4th Judges case
Against the 99th amendments and NJAC
• Both were quashed by the SCI on the grounds of ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine
Association & Anr. vs. Union of India - 2015
•Called the 4th Judges case
Against the 99th amendments and NJAC
• Both were quashed by the SCI on the grounds of ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine
"Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra" -1983
• Right against violence in police custody
• Right against violence in police custody
"Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal
Corporation"-1985
‘Right to Livelihood’ FR under article 21
Corporation"-1985
‘Right to Livelihood’ FR under article 21
"Shah Bano case"-1985
•SC decided ‘Right to alimony (living support from divorced husband)’ to Muslim women
•But the central Government enacted law to nullify SC decision.
•Generated heated debate on Secularism
•SC decided ‘Right to alimony (living support from divorced husband)’ to Muslim women
•But the central Government enacted law to nullify SC decision.
•Generated heated debate on Secularism
"Attorney General of India v. Lachma
Devi"-1988
• Public hanging violates article 21- hence should be banned.
Devi"-1988
• Public hanging violates article 21- hence should be banned.
"Shantistar Builders v. N.K. Totame"-1990
•‘Right to Shelter’ under article 21
•‘Right to Shelter’ under article 21
"Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar"-1991
• ‘Right to pollution free environment’ FR under article 21
• ‘Right to pollution free environment’ FR under article 21
"Indra Sawhney v. Union of India"-1992
•Creamy layer policy: creamy layer among OBC, SC/ST be excluded from reservation.
•Creamy layer policy: creamy layer among OBC, SC/ST be excluded from reservation.
"S.R. Bommai v/s Union of India"-1994
• Application of article 356 to dismiss state Government was made tough
• Profoundly affected centre-state relation
• Application of article 356 to dismiss state Government was made tough
• Profoundly affected centre-state relation
"Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan"-1997
•Vishaka Guidelines: against sexual
harassment of women at work place
•Vishaka Guidelines: against sexual
harassment of women at work place
"Lily Thomas v. Union of India"- 2013
•Disqualification on conviction for certain offences: convicted person disqualified for 6 years from contesting election.
•Disqualification on conviction for certain offences: convicted person disqualified for 6 years from contesting election.
"Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India"
"Maneka Gandhi vs the Union of
India"
"R Sukanya vs R Sridhar"
"Kharak Singh vs State of Uttar
Pradesh"
"Govind vs State of Madhya
Pradesh"-2017
•‘R to Privacy’ under art 21
These cases helped bring ‘Right to Privacy’ under art 21
"Maneka Gandhi vs the Union of
India"
"R Sukanya vs R Sridhar"
"Kharak Singh vs State of Uttar
Pradesh"
"Govind vs State of Madhya
Pradesh"-2017
•‘R to Privacy’ under art 21
These cases helped bring ‘Right to Privacy’ under art 21
-Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union Of India- 2018.
• Decriminalised homosexuality by striking off parts of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Decriminalised homosexuality by striking off parts of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Found this thread helpful?
1. Follow @PolityGovUPSC for more such contents.
2. Please show some love and repost to share it with your friends and colleagues.
1. Follow @PolityGovUPSC for more such contents.
2. Please show some love and repost to share it with your friends and colleagues.
Loading suggestions...