Scribd
Upload
31 views5 pages

Important Supreme Court Judgements: by - Indo Pathshala

Uploaded by

surya kant
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
31 views5 pages

Important Supreme Court Judgements: by - Indo Pathshala

Uploaded by

surya kant
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

By – Indo Pathshala

Contact Number – 9123206137


https://youtube.com/@indopathshala400
https://telegram.me/Indopathshala

Important Supreme Court Judgements


Judgements Remark

Golaknath case (1967) • Supreme Court held that Parliament could


not amend Fundamental Rights,and that to
amend the Fundamental rights a new
Constituent Assembly would be required.
• Also stated that Article 368 gives the
procedure to amend the Constitution but does
not confer on Parliament the power to amend
the Constitution.
Keshavananda Bharati • This judgement defined ‘basic structure’
vs State of doctrine
Kerala (1973) • Parliament cannot alter the fundamental
structure a ‘Basic Structure’ of the
constitution.
• Judiciary can strike down any amendment
passed by Parliament that is in conflict with
the basic structure of the Constitution.
Maneka Gandhi v. • The SC held that right to go abroad is
Union of India (1978) included in the Right to Personal Liberty.
• The right to life and personal liberty under
Article 21 reads: ‘No person shall be deprived
of his life or personal liberty except according
to procedure established by law”.
• The SC held ‘procedure established by law’
under Article 21 would have the same effect
as the expression ‘due process of law’.

MC Mehta and Union • SC held that its power under Article 32 is not
Of India (1986) restricted to preventive measures, but also
remedial measures when rights are violated.
• It also held that in the case of industries
engaged in hazardous or inherently
dangerous activities, Absolute Liability was
to be followed..
Indra Sawhney v. Union • The SC held that advanced sections among
of India (1992) the OBCs (like creamy layer exclusion, no
reservation in promotion, total reserved
quota should not exceed 50% ) must be
excluded from the list of beneficiaries of
reservation
• Government introduced Article 16(4A) to the
Constitution, empowering the state to make
provisions for reservation in matters of
promotion to SC/ST employees if the state
feels they are not adequately represented.
I.R Coelho and State of • This SC held even though a law is listed in
Tamil Nadu (2007) the 9th Schedule, it can still be scrutinized
and challenged in court.
• The 9th Schedule contains a list of acts and
legislation that cannot be challenged in court.
Vishaka v. State of • SC gave a set of guidelines for employers – as
Rajasthan (1997) well as other responsible persons or
institutions – to immediately ensure the
prevention of sexual harassment (‘Vishaka
Guidelines’)

Anuradha Bhasin v. • This judgement which underlines the growing


Union of India and importance of the internet in today's times
others (2020) and imposes limitations on the power of the
government to issue orders imposing blanket
ban on internet services.
Aruna Ramachandra • The SC ruled that individuals had a right to
Shanbaug v. Union of die with dignity, allowing passive euthanasia
India (2011) with guidelines.
• Passive euthanasia - intentionally letting a
patient die by withholding artificial life
support such as a ventilator or feeding tube.

A.K. Gopalan Case • The SC decided that, within the terms of the
(1950) Preventive Imprisonment Act, there was no
violation of the Fundamental Rights
enshrined in Articles 13, 19, 21, and 22 as
long as the imprisonment followed the law.
Lily Thomas v. Union of • The SC decided that any MLA, MLC, or MP
India (2013) convicted of a crime and sentenced to at least
two years in jail would automatically lose
their right to serve in the House.
Minerva Mills case
(1980) • This case again strengthens the Basic
Structure doctrine.
• The judgement struck down 2 changes made
to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment
Act 1976, declaring them to be violative of the
basic structure.
• The judgement makes it clear that the
Constitution, and not the Parliament is
supreme.
Justice K.S. • Fundamental Right to Privacy is intrinsic to
Puttaswamy vs. Union life and liberty and thus, comes under Article
of India (2017) 21 of the Indian constitution
NOTA judgement (2013) • This judgement introduced the NOTA (None-
Of-The-Above) option for Indian voters.
Triple Talaq Judgement • The SC prohibited practise of “triple talaq,”
(2016 which allowed Muslim men to dissolve their
marriages unilaterally by saying “talaq” three
times without providing for support or
alimony.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v.
Raj Narain case (1975) • The SC invalidated Clause (4) of Article 329-
A using basic structure theory and, which
was inserted by the 39th Amendment in
1975, on the grounds that it was outside the
scope of the Parliament’s amending power
because it eliminated the fundamental
elements of the Constitution.
• Article 329A Constitution of India: Special
provision as to elections to Parliament in the
case of Prime Minister and Speaker.

Budhadev Karmaskar • The Supreme Court of India held that


vs State of West Bengal prostitutes also have a right to live with
dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India since they are also human beings and
their problems also need to be addressed.
Thereafter in 2022, in Budhadev Karmaskar
v. State of West Bengal and Others[2] held
that the “basic protection of human decency.

Janhit Abhiyan vs • A 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has


Union of India (2022) upheld the validity of the 103rd
Constitutional Amendment Act.
Sarla Mudgal, & others. The Court held that the first marriage would
v. Union of India (1955) have to be dissolved under the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. The man's first marriage
would therefore, still be valid and under
Hindu law, his second marriage, solemnized
after his conversion, would be illegal under
Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Jacob Puliyel vs Union • It held that any lawful restriction of an
Of India 2022 individual's bodily autonomy would have to
meet this threefold test.
• It also held that bodily integrity is protected
under Article 21 and that no person could be
forced to be vaccinated.
Shah Bano Begum case • The SC affirmed a Muslim woman’s claim to
(1985) alimony and declared that everyone,
regardless of religion, is subject to the 1973
Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The government introduced the Muslim
Women (Protection on Divorce Act), 1986.
• Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act, 1986-An Act to protect the
rights of Muslim women who have been
divorced by, or have obtained divorce from,
their husbands and to provide for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Practise Questions
Q1 The concept of 'basic structure' came into existence in the landmark
judgment in ? Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case (1973)

Q2 Under which case Supreme Court held that prostitutes also have a right to
live with dignity under Article 21? Budhadev Karmaskar vs State of West
Bengal

Q3 Which case led the guideline for sexual harassment at workplace ? Vishaka
v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

Q4 Which landmark case on bigamy in India ? Sarla Mudgal, & others. v. Union
of India

Q5 Which landmark case held that no person could be forced to be vaccinated?


Jacob Puliyel vs Union Of India 2022

Q6 Which landmark case held Fundamental Right to Privacy is intrinsic to life


and liberty ? Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017)

Q7 Under which landmark case SC allowed passive euthanasia with guidelines ?


Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)

Q8 In which case the SC held that right to go abroad is included in the Right to
Personal Liberty ? Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Q9 Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights
in ? Constitution. Golaknath case (1967)

Q10 Which judgement imposes limitations on the power of the government to


issue orders imposing blanket ban on internet services. Anuradha Bhasin v.
Union of India and others (2020)

n-gl.com

You might also like