TOP 10 LANDMARK

CASES OF
CONSTIUTION
OF INDIA
legalvidhiya.com Swipe to learn more >>>
 I.C. GOLAKNATH AND
ORS.
V.
STATE OF PUNJAB
AND ANRS. (1967)
The main issue in the this case was whether Parliament had the
authority to amend fundamental rights, specifically by taking away
or abridging those rights. In a majority judgment (by a 6:5
majority), the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament did not
possess the power to amend any aspect of the fundamental rights
provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution. The court
determined that Parliament’s amending power under Article 368
did not extend to altering the basic structure or the substantive
content of fundamental rights, considering Part III to be the
essence and soul of the Constitution and beyond the reach of such
amending power. This landmark decision had significant
implications, limiting Parliament’s authority to amend
fundamental rights.
KESAVANANDA
BHARATI
V.
STATE OF KERALA
At the heart of this case lay the fundamental question
surrounding the extent of Parliament’s authority to
amend the Constitution, with a particular focus on
whether any constraints existed on that power. In this
case, the Supreme Court held by a slim majority of 7:6
that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
under Article 368 was subject to basic structure
limitations. Indeed, the Supreme Court overturned the
verdict in the Golaknath case through its ruling in this
case. The court established that Parliament does possess
the authority to amend the Constitution; however, this
power is not absolute and is bound by the restrictions
outlined in the “Basic Structure Doctrine.”
VISHAKHA AND ORS.
V.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(1997)
The central concern in this case revolved around the
lack of legal frameworks and guidelines to effectively
tackle and prevent instances of sexual harassment
faced by women in the workplace. In this case, the
Supreme Court held that sexual harassment at the
workplace violates a woman’s fundamental rights under
Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life
and liberty) of the Constitution. Recognizing the
urgency of addressing this issue, the court referred to
international conventions, including CEDAW, and
guidelines from other countries to formulate the
“Vishaka Guidelines.” These guidelines serve as an
interim framework until legislation is enacted to
address and prevent sexual harassment in workplaces.
MANEKA GANDHI
V.
UNION OF INDIA
(1978)
This case centered on the interpretation of Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing the right to life and
personal liberty. The key question was whether this right
encompasses the right to a fair procedure when a
person’s passport is impounded. Specifically, the
challenge was raised against the government’s
impounding of Maneka Gandhi’s passport without
providing her with a chance to be heard. The landmark
judgment expanded Article 21’s scope, recognizing
personal liberty as more than physical restraint absence.
It encompassed the right to travel abroad and be heard
before affecting personal liberties. The court deemed the
government’s action as a violation of natural justice and
due process, stressing fair procedures are vital. The
ruling established that personal liberty can only be
restricted through just and reasonable procedures,
highlighting the importance of procedural safeguards
and natural justice principles.
OLGA TELLIS
V.
BOMBAY MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION (1985)
This case dealt with eviction of pavement dwellers and
their right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. It questioned whether evicting them
without offering alternative accommodation violated
their fundamental rights. The case involved pavement
dwellers facing eviction without alternative
arrangements. The court ruled this violated their
constitutional rights and principles of social justice.The
judgment emphasized that economic reasons or urban
planning alone cannot deprive the right to life and
livelihood. The state must act justly and fairly, providing
alternative arrangements. The court directed the
government to formulate a comprehensive policy for
rehabilitating and providing amenities to the affected
pavement dwellers.This ruling was crucial in
acknowledging the right to livelihood as integral to
Article 21 and highlighted the state’s duty to protect the
socio-economic rights of vulnerable sections.
INDIAN YOUNG
LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION
V.
STATE OF KERALA (2018)
In focus was the case challenging the ban on women aged
10 to 50 from entering Kerala’s Sabarimala Temple. The
specific issue was whether this prohibition violated
women’s fundamental rights, such as equality, non-
discrimination, and freedom of religion, as enshrined in
the Indian Constitution. In this historic ruling, India’s
Supreme Court overturned the ban on women of
menstrual age entering the Sabarimala Temple. The court
cited the violation of fundamental principles of equality
and non-discrimination. It emphasized that gender
cannot be a basis for denying the right to worship and
affirmed women’s constitutional rights. The case set a
precedent for challenging gender discrimination in
religious practices, promoting gender justice and equal
rights.
NAZ FOUNDATION
V.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT
(2009)
In this legal challenge, the focus was on Section 377, a
longstanding law within the Indian Penal Code that
criminalized consensual homosexual acts among
adults. The key issue was whether this law undermined
the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ individuals,
specifically pertaining to equality, privacy, and
freedom of expression. The Delhi High Court
decriminalized consensual adult homosexual
relationships by reading down Section 377 of the
Indian Penal Code. It recognized LGBTQ+ individuals’
rights to privacy, dignity, and equality, emphasizing
that sexual orientation is an inherent part of identity.
Criminalizing homosexuality perpetuated
discrimination and stigma, and the court stressed the
importance of inclusivity and non-discrimination for
societal progress.
SHAH BANO
V.
MOHAMMED AHMED
KHAN (1985)
The case centered around the issue of maintenance for
divorced Muslim women. The specific issue was whether
divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance
beyond the period of iddat (a waiting period after divorce),
under the Muslim personal law or under the general
provisions of the Indian law. The Supreme Court ruled that
divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance
beyond iddat under Section 125 of the CrPC. It ruled that
the right to maintenance for divorced Muslim women is
not subject to personal laws alone and can be enforced
under the general provisions of the CrPC, which guarantee
maintenance to women of all religions, including Muslim
women. However, the government later passed the Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, limiting
maintenance to the iddat period. The case sparked
debates on women’s rights and the balance between
personal laws and constitutional principles.
SHREYA SINGHAL
V.
UNION OF INDIA
(2015)
The issue of freedom of speech and expression on the
internet was addressed in this case. The specific issue
was the constitutionality of Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act, which provided for the
punishment of individuals for posting offensive or false
content online. The Supreme Court in this judgement
struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology
Act as unconstitutional. The court cited its vagueness
and overreach, which posed a threat to freedom of
speech and expression online. The ruling highlighted the
importance of protecting free speech on the internet and
set guidelines to prevent misuse of online speech
provisions. The case’s impact was significant,
safeguarding digital freedom of expression and setting a
precedent for clear and limited restrictions on speech
rights.
PEOPLE’S UNION FOR
CIVIL LIBERTIES
V.
UNION OF INDIA (2004)
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
(2004) The case addressed the legality of encounter
killings and extrajudicial killings by the police. It raised
concerns about the constitutionality of incidents
where alleged criminals are killed without due
process. In this landmark judgment, India’s Supreme
Court addressed encounter killings, emphasizing the
right to life and police accountability. It set strict
guidelines, permitting encounters only in self-defense
or to protect officers and bystanders. Independent
agencies must investigate every encounter to ensure
transparency. The court’s guidelines have set
standards for investigating and prosecuting encounter
cases, prioritizing the rights of alleged criminals and
innocent citizens.