Respondent- Finals (All Supreme Court)

1. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [(1977) 3 SCC 592 : (1978) 1 SCR 1]

The case revolves around the dissolution of Legislative Assemblies in several states by
the Central Government under Article 174(2)(b) of the Constitution. The Union Home
Minister sent a letter to the Chief Ministers of Congress(R)-ruled states, urging them to
advise the Governors to dissolve the State Assemblies and seek a fresh mandate from
the electorate. This action was purportedly based on the perceived loss of confidence in
the ruling party following the outcome of the Lok Sabha elections in which the ruling
party lost its majority.
The plaintiffs, comprising six states including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab,
Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, and Orissa, filed suits challenging the legality of the Home
Minister's letter.

Judgement- The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the potential proclamation under
Article 356, stating interference was only warranted if constitutional provisions were
violated. The President's satisfaction couldn't be questioned unless grossly
unreasonable. The proclamation was seen as a safeguard against constitutional
breakdown. While acknowledging broad power under Article 356, the court asserted
challenges were valid if exercised maliciously or on prohibited grounds. The President's
satisfaction was crucial, and maintaining democratic norms was relevant. The Home
Minister's letter was deemed advisory. Article 131(a) covered disputes between Central
and State governments involving legal rights.

2. Collector of Customs v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty [AIR 1962 SC 316 : (1962) 1 Cri
LJ 364].
Under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, the Central
Government banned gold imports without Reserve Bank permission. An amendment in
1952 incorporated Sea Customs Act provisions, including Section 19 allowing the
government to restrict imports. Section 178A (1955) shifted the burden of proof to
individuals for seized goods believed to be smuggled. In 1956, N, an employee, was
caught with gold, leading to its seizure. The Collector of Customs ordered confiscation,
citing Section 178A. The respondent contested, arguing Section 178A violated
constitutional rights and didn't apply to the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. They
also claimed the burden of proof didn't apply as there was no immediate suspicion of
smuggling. The Collector defended the confiscation, citing precedent.

Judgement: The judgment stated that there were discrepancies in Nandgopal's story
regarding the gold purchase and possession. The circumstances, including the quantity
of gold and the undelivered letter found on him, raised reasonable suspicion of
smuggling. The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 178A, applying the burden
of proof to contraventions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. It concluded
that the Customs Officer had a reasonable belief the gold was smuggled. Therefore, the
petitions filed by the respondent should have been dismissed, and the appeals were
allowed with costs. Appeal 410 of 1960 was also dismissed.

3. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536

The appellant, a textile mill manufacturing blended yarn, paid excise duty on blended
yarn manufactured for captive consumption under certain tariff items. However, the
Gujarat High Court held that the levy of excise duty on blended yarn under those tariff
 items was ultra vires prior to March 16/17, 1972. The court directed a refund of excise
duty paid for three years before the petition's institution. The appellant and other mill-
owners sought refund, claiming they paid the duty under a mistake of law. The Revenue
did not refund the duty, leading to lawsuits. The trial court decreed in favor of the mill-
owners, but the High Court of Gujarat overturned these decrees, stating that restitution
claims require proof of "loss or injury." Since the duty was passed on to buyers, the
claim for restitution was rejected. The matter was escalated to the Supreme Court and
eventually referred to a nine-judge bench.

4. State of TN V National South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Association,

Civil appeal no. 6764 of 2021
A Government Scheme which granted loan waiver to small and marginal farmers was
under challenge before the Court for being discriminatory against other farmers. The
Madras High Court held the grant of loan waivers only to small and marginal farmers
to be arbitrary and directed the appellant to grant the same benefit to all farmers
irrespective of the extent of landholding. The High Court in the impugned judgment
has observed that the scheme is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive since the total
extent of land held by a person is calculated based on the information in the landholding
register which permits discrepancies. It also held the scheme to be under-inclusive for
not extending the benefit to ‘other farmers’ or the ‘large farmers’

Judgement- A policy is the reasoning and object that guides the decision of the
authority, which in our case is the State of Tamil Nadu. Statutes, notifications,
Ordinances, or government orders are means for the implementation of the policy of
the State. Therefore, it is not possible to completely appreciate the law without
reference to the policy behind the law. The judicially evolved two-pronged test to
determine the validity of the law vis-à-vis Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, refers
to the objective of the law because the “policy” behind the law is never completely
insulated from judicial attention.

5. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India

A retired High Court Judge K.S. Puttaswamy filed a petition in 2012 against the Union
of India before a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court challenging the
constitutionality of Aadhaar because it is violating the right to privacy which had been
established on reference from the Constitution Bench to determine whether or not the
right to privacy was guaranteed as an independent fundamental right under the
constitution of India following past decisions from Supreme Court benches.

Judgement- It is stated in the judgment that the privacy is to be an integral component

of Part III of the Indian Constitution, which lays down the fundamental rights of the
citizens. The Supreme Court also stated that the state must carefully balance the
individual privacy and the legitimate aim, at any cost as fundamental rights cannot be
given or taken away by law, and all laws and acts must abide by the constitution. The
Court also declared that the right to privacy is not an absolute right and any invasion of
privacy by state or non-state actor must satisfy the triple test.- Legitimate Aim,
Proportionality, Legality.

6. S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra

The respondent filed an election petition against the appellant, who was a returned
candidate to the Punjab Legislative Assembly, alleging various irregularities including
 tampering with postal ballot papers and commission of corrupt practices. The High
Court found evidence of tampering with four ballot papers in favor of the appellant.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the election petition, declared another candidate
as elected, and set aside the appellant's election. The appeal filed by the appellant was
dismissed by the Court.

Judgement- The judgment discusses the interpretation of Section 94 of the

Representation of People Act, 1951, emphasizing that it must serve the purpose of
ensuring free and fair elections. The section, which protects the secrecy of the ballot,
should be understood within the context of upholding democratic principles. It is
highlighted that while the section provides a privilege for voters not to disclose their
vote, this privilege can be waived voluntarily. The court emphasizes the importance of
balancing the secrecy of the ballot with the broader goal of maintaining the integrity of
elections. Additionally, it clarifies that if a voter chooses to disclose their vote
voluntarily, it does not violate the law. Ultimately, the judgment underscores the need
to prioritize the purity of elections while respecting the rights of voters.

7. People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) V Union of India

The Supreme Court of India held that Indian voters have a right under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Indian Constitution to obtain information about political candidates. The People’s
Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) challenged the validity of a 1951 law, which stated
that political candidates were not bound to disclose any information not required under
the law. The Court reasoned that the availability of basic information about the
candidates enables voters to make an informed decision and also paves the way for
public debates on the merits and demerits of candidates.

8. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India

The petitioner, Kuldip Nayar, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution challenging the amendments made to the Representation of People Act,
1951 in 2003 (Amendment 40 of 2003). The amendments removed a provision related
to the domicile requirement for representatives in the Council of States and introduced
an open ballot system in elections, allegedly violating federalism and the principle of
secrecy. The Supreme Court framed the issues for consideration.

Judgement- The court upheld the constitutionality of domicile requirements in

elections, stating they don't infringe on citizenship criteria. It also ruled that the 2003
amendment didn't violate secrecy in elections, distinguishing between proportional
representation and constituency elections. Consequently, the petitioner's case was
dismissed.

9. UOI V Assn. for Democratic Reforms

The Association for Democratic Reforms petitioned the High Court of Delhi to enforce
recommendations from the Law Commission aimed at enhancing transparency in India's
electoral process. These recommendations included requiring candidates to disclose
personal background information like criminal history, educational qualifications, and
financial details. The High Court ruled in favor of the petition, asserting that voters have
a right to know such information for informed decision-making in a democracy. The
Union of India challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that neither the
Election Commission nor the High Court had the authority to mandate such disclosures
and that voters did not have a right to such information.
 Judgement- The Supreme Court of India upheld a High Court order mandating the
Election Commission to obtain and disclose to the public background information
relating to candidates running for office, including information on their assets, criminal
records, and educational background. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to know
about public officials is derived from the constitutional right to freedom of expression.

10. Vinay Narayan Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

On 8th November 2016 Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that from midnight of
the same day, all Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 banknotes of the Mahatma Gandhi series would
not be legal tender. The issuance of new Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 banknotes in exchange for
demonetized banknotes were also announced. The Prime Minister claimed that the move
will eliminate fake currencies and will also stop corruption and terror funding.
Judgement- The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of demonetization and
declared it to be lawful with a 4:1 majority. The Apex Court held that the Central
Government has the power to demonetize all series of banknotes of a particular
denomination under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act provided that the recommendation has
to be made by the Central Board. The process has to be initiated by the Central Board.

11. Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal

The case involves three appeals arising from denials of access to information under the
RTI Act. The first appeal concerns a request for correspondence involving the Chief
Justice of India regarding alleged judicial influence. The second involves a request for
documents related to the appointment of Supreme Court judges. The third appeal concerns
information on judges' asset declarations. Initially denied, the CIC ordered access in the
first two appeals. The third appeal challenged a Delhi High Court ruling that the Chief
Justice's office falls under the RTI Act's "public authority" definition, allowing access to
asset declaration information.

Judgement- The Supreme Court of India ruled that it falls under the RTI Act as a "public
authority." Subhash Chandra Agarwal sought information about judges' assets and judicial
appointments, denied initially by the CPIO. The CIC granted access, leading to an appeal
to the Delhi High Court. The High Court affirmed the CIC's decision, citing the public
interest in transparency and accountability. The Court balanced privacy rights with public
interest, allowing disclosure of information related to judicial functioning and assets, but
subjecting third-party information to re-examination.

12. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India

The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act of 2014 amended constitutional

provisions regarding the appointment and transfer of judges. It replaced the Collegium
system with the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC). Under the NJAC,
judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President based on recommendations
from the Commission, removing the need for consultation with sitting judges.

Judgement- The Supreme Court declared the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act unconstitutional. It found that
the NJAC lacked adequate judicial representation, undermining judicial independence,
and violated the principle of separation of powers. The Court ordered a return to the
previous system of judicial appointments and transfers. Justice Chelameswar dissented.