Landmark Judgments of Constitution of India
The 38 leading Constitution of India cases — each with a full brief (facts, issues, held, ratio). Verified against the original judgment. Free to read.
Article 21 — life & personal liberty, due process, expanding rights
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 'Procedure established by law' means a validly enacted statute, not American due process; Articles 19 and 21 occupy mutually exclusive fields.
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab The death penalty for murder is constitutional, but must be confined to the 'rarest of rare' cases after balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
- Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation The right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21; eviction depriving livelihood must follow fair procedure, though no right to resettlement was recognised.
- Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India The right to a clean environment is part of Article 21; the precautionary principle and polluter-pays principle are part of Indian law as facets of sustainable development.
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal Custodial torture and death violate Article 21; the Court laid down binding arrest/detention safeguards and affirmed monetary compensation as a public-law remedy.
Article 19 — freedoms & reasonable restrictions
- Romesh Thappar v State of Madras Restrictions on speech are valid under Article 19(2) only if aimed at undermining the security of the State, not the wider notion of public order or public safety.
- State of Madras v V G Row There is no abstract standard of reasonableness; the reasonableness of a restriction is judged by the nature of the right, the purpose and extent of the restriction, the evil to be remedied, and prevailing conditions.
- Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar Section 124A (sedition) is constitutional only if read down to penalise speech that incites violence or has a tendency to create public disorder, not mere criticism of the government.
- Shreya Singhal v Union of India Section 66A of the IT Act is unconstitutional for vagueness, overbreadth and chilling effect; speech may be restricted only on the grounds enumerated in Article 19(2) and only at the stage of incitement.
DPSP–Fundamental Rights relationship (Art 37, 39)
Article 14 — equality, reasonable classification & arbitrariness
- State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar A statute conferring uncanalised power to single out cases or offences for trial by special procedure, without an intelligible basis, violates Article 14.
- Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar A statute permitting government to constitute a commission of inquiry into definite matters of public importance does not violate Article 14; the classification principles and presumption of constitutionality are settled.
- E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness; State action that is arbitrary is, by that fact, violative of Articles 14 and 16, independent of any classification.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive; any procedure or State action affecting these rights must be fair, just and reasonable, and not arbitrary, to satisfy Article 14.
- Air India v. Nergesh Meerza A service regulation terminating an air hostess's employment on first pregnancy is arbitrary and unconstitutional; differential retirement/marriage conditions tied to sex offend Article 14.
Secularism & freedom of religion (Art 25–28)
- Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt Religious freedom under Articles 25–26 protects essential rituals and practices, not just belief, but the State may regulate secular activity and administration associated with religion.
- Sastri Yagnapurushdasji v Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya (Satsangi case) The Swaminarayan (Satsangi) sect is part of the Hindu religion, not a separate religion; Hinduism is an inclusive 'way of life' and their temples fall within Hindu temple-entry laws.
- Rev Stainislaus v State of Madhya Pradesh The right to 'propagate' religion under Article 25(1) does not include a right to convert another person to one's own religion; anti-conversion laws barring conversion by force, fraud or allurement are valid.
Writs & judicial review (Art 32, 226)
- T.C. Basappa v T. Nagappa Writ powers under Art 226 are in the widest terms; the technicalities of English prerogative writs do not bind Indian courts.
- Daryao v State of Uttar Pradesh A High Court's decision on merits in an Article 226 writ petition operates as res judicata barring a subsequent Article 32 petition on the same matter.
- Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa Courts can award monetary compensation under Articles 32 and 226 as a public-law remedy for violation of Article 21, distinct from private-law damages.
- Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra A writ under Article 32 does not lie to a High Court or to another Bench of the Supreme Court; final SC judgments may be reconsidered only via a curative petition.
Federalism, Centre-State relations & Article 356
- State of West Bengal v. Union of India States are not sovereign; Parliament has unrestricted power to legislate for acquisition of property situate in and vested in a State, the Indian federal scheme favouring the Union.
- State of Rajasthan v. Union of India The President's satisfaction under Article 356 is largely a political question with very limited judicial review, justiciable only on grounds of mala fides or wholly extraneous considerations.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India Presidential Proclamation under Article 356 is justiciable; can be struck down if mala fide or based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds.
- Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India Removal of the domicile/residence requirement for Rajya Sabha members does not violate federalism; Indian federalism is not territory-related and leans toward a strong Centre.
Basic structure & amendment of the Constitution (Art 368)
- I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab A constitutional amendment is 'law' under Art 13(2) and Parliament cannot amend Part III to abridge fundamental rights.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala Parliament's amending power under Art 368 is plenary but cannot alter the basic structure or essential features of the Constitution.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain Clause (4) of Art 329A inserted by the 39th Amendment is unconstitutional for violating the basic structure, including free and fair elections and rule of law.
- Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India Clauses (4) and (5) of Art 368 are void as they confer unlimited amending power and exclude judicial review, both contrary to the basic structure.
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are open to challenge if they violate the basic structure or the essence of fundamental rights.
Reservation & equality in public employment (Art 15, 16)
- State of Kerala v N.M. Thomas Article 16(4) is not an exception to but an emphatic illustration of the equality of opportunity guaranteed by Article 16(1), so preferential treatment of backward classes flows from equality itself.
- Indra Sawhney v Union of India Backward-class reservations in public employment under Art 16(4) are valid but capped at 50%, the creamy layer must be excluded, and no reservation in promotions is permitted.
- M. Nagaraj v Union of India The constitutional amendments enabling reservation in promotion, consequential seniority and carry-forward are valid, but each State policy must show backwardness, inadequacy of representation and not impair administrative efficiency.
Judicial independence, appointments & separation of powers
- S.P. Gupta v Union of India (First Judges' Case) 'Consultation' in Articles 124 and 217 does not mean concurrence; the executive (Union Government) holds the ultimate power of appointment, with no primacy to the CJI's view.
- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India (Second Judges' Case) Reading 'consultation' in light of judicial independence and separation of powers, the judiciary (the CJI acting with senior colleagues) has primacy in appointments; the CJI's recommendation is binding on the executive.
- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India (NJAC / Fourth Judges' Case) The 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act are unconstitutional for violating the basic structure, as judicial primacy in appointments is essential to judicial independence; the collegium system revives.
