Landmark cases

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

o Judgment: This case established the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Supreme
Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it
cannot alter or destroy its fundamental framework.

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

o Judgment: The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 (right to life
and personal liberty) and held that no person could be deprived of their
personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law,
which must be just, fair, and reasonable.

o The maxim of Audi Alteram Partem, which means let the other side be heard,
was not followed in this case. Maneka Gandhi was allowed ‘post decisional
hearing’.

o Moreover, the Supreme Court stated that Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article
19 (Right to Freedom) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) form
the Golden Triangle of the Constitution.

3. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

o Judgment: The case affirmed that the right to equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution cannot be curtailed by any arbitrary law. This Act placed the
election of the President, the Vice President, the Prime Minister and the
Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond the scrutiny of the judiciary.

4. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013)

o Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the police must register a First
Information Report (FIR) when a cognizable offense is disclosed, establishing a
clear guideline for the registration of FIRs.

5. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)

o Judgment: The Supreme Court reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine and
ruled that certain provisions of the Constitution (including those relating to
fundamental rights) cannot be altered by Parliament.

o In this case, the Court added two features to the list of basic structure
features. They were: judicial review and balance between Fundamental Rights
and DPSP.
 o The judges ruled that a limited amending power itself is a basic feature of the
Constitution.

6. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

o Judgment: The case led to the formulation of guidelines for preventing sexual
harassment in the workplace, which later became the Vishaka Guidelines and
contributed to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.

7. R. K. Garg v. Union of India (1981)

o Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Income Tax
Act, affirming the government’s authority to impose taxes and remove
exemptions on the grounds of public policy.

8. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)

o Judgment: The case examined the extent of the Indian government’s power
to implement certain laws and determine their applicability to states.

9. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

o Judgment: The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent custodial

deaths and torture, asserting that the right to life includes the right to be free
from torture.

10. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

o Judgment: The Supreme Court in this case expanded the concept of the right
to a healthy environment under Article 21 and emphasized the importance of
environmental protection through the Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
mechanism.

11. L Chandra Kumar case

 The tribunals however are not meant to replace the Courts. This has
been explained by the seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court in L
Chandra Kumar case [IT 1997 (3) SC 589] where it was held that
tribunals would not take away the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts,
and their decisions could be scrutinised by the Division bench of the
High Courts.
12. Madison V Marbury
 established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a
law unconstitutional.
13. Indra Sawhney and Union of India (1992)
• SC examined the scope and extent of Article 16(4), which provides for the
reservation of jobs in favour of backward classes. It upheld the constitutional validity
 of 27% reservation for the OBCs with certain conditions (like creamy layer exclusion,
no reservation in promotion, total reserved quota should not exceed 50%, etc.)
• Here, ‘Rule of Law’ was added to the list of basic features of the constitution.
14. HUSSAINARA KHATOON VS STATE OF BIHAR
 Justice served for several under- trial prisoners and who were released
after this judgement. Even the importance of Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) was also highlighted and got priority.

Unit 2: Alternative Dispute Resolution in India (ADR)

1. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2010)

o Judgment: The Supreme Court affirmed the importance of Arbitration as a

method of resolving disputes and recognized ADR as an effective alternative
to the traditional court process.

o In this case, representative suits election disputes, criminal offences case

against specific classes of persons (minors, mentally challenged) have been
excluded from the scope of mediation.

2. Balco vs Kaiser
 The Court in this case also drew a distinction between a ‘seat’ and
‘venue’.
 Part I of the Arbitration and reconciliation act applies only to
arbitrations having their seat / place in India.
 However ,the 2015 Amendment Act has compensated for some of the
shortcomings in BALCO by adding a provision to S.2(2) of the Act
which laid down that the provision for interim relief by the court (S.9)
shall be applicable to even foreign seated arbitrations.

Unit 3: Topics in Law I (Business Laws)

A. Law of Contract

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893)

o Judgment: Landmark case in contract law that clarified the principles of offer,
acceptance, and consideration in the formation of a contract.

o In Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1893), the court ruled that the company's
advertisement was a general offer, meaning it was made to the public at
large. Mrs. Carlill accepted the offer by performing the conditions (using the
smoke ball and contracting influenza). The court held that once the conditions
were met, a binding contract was formed, and the company was obligated to
pay the £100 reward. This case reinforced the concept that a general offer can
lead to a unilateral contract when the offer’s terms are fulfilled.
 Balfour v. Balfour (1919)

o Judgment: Established the distinction between social and domestic

agreements and contracts, ruling that agreements made in domestic
situations (like between spouses) are not legally binding. Agreements that do
not intend to create legal agreement are not contracts.

B. Law of Torts

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)

o Judgment: Established the neighbour principle in tort law, which laid the
foundation for modern negligence law, stating that a manufacturer owes a
duty of care to the end consumer.

o Thus, the duty of care is owed to those whom one can reasonably foresee as
being potentially harmed.

C. Law of Property

Fatimabibi v. Arrfana Begum

The fruit-bearing trees like Mango, Jackfruit, Jamun, etc., are not standing timber, and they
are immovable properties.

Shantabai v. State of Bombay

Whether trees can be regarded as movable or immovable depends upon the circumstances
of the case. If the intention is that trees should continue to have the benefit of further
sustenance or nutriment by the soil (land), e.g., enjoining their fruits, then such tree is
immovable property. But if the intention is to cut them down sooner or later for the purpose
utilizing the wood for building or other industrial purposes, they would be timber and
accordingly be regarded as movable property.

Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court stated that moral rights, which define the essence of an
author’s work, cannot be taken away from the author, even if the work is sold. Destroying or
altering the work was deemed a violation of the author’s moral rights.

Eastern Book Company & Others V. D.B. Modak & Another

The Supreme Court held that “the inputs put in the original text by the appellants in (i)
segregating the existing paragraphs in the original text by breaking them into separate
paragraphs; (ii) adding internal paragraph numbering within a judgment after providing
uniform paragraph numbering to the multiple judgments; and (iii) indicating in the judgment
the Judges who have dissented or concurred by introducing the phrases like concurring,
‘partly concurring’, ‘partly dissenting’, ‘dissenting’, ‘supplementing’, ‘majority expressing no
opinion’, etc., have to be viewed in a different light. The task of paragraph numbering and
internal referencing requires skill and judgment in great measure. The editor who inserts
para numbering must know how legal argumentation and legal discourse is conducted and
how a judgment of a court of law must read…. In these inputs put in by the appellants in the
judgments reported in SCC, the appellants have a copyright and nobody is permitted to
utilize the same.

Burlington Home Shopping Pvt. vs Rajnish Chibber

a trade secret is defined as any information with commercial value, which is not available in
the public domain and the disclosure of which would cause significant harm to the owner.

K. M. Chinnappa v. Union of India

Defined “Environmental Law” as an instrument to protect and improve the environment

and control or prevent any act or omission polluting or likely to pollute the environment.

K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954)

o Judgment: Clarified the law regarding transfer of property, specifically related

to property rights and the rights of transferees.

D. Intellectual Property Law

11. Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013)

o Judgment: The Supreme Court held that Evergreening of patents is not

allowed in India under the Indian Patents Act, stressing the importance of
generic drugs in protecting public health.

Unit 4: Topics in Law II (General Laws)

A. Law and Sustainable Development

12. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

o Judgment: Expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (right to life) to include

the right to a healthy environment, marking the beginning of environmental
jurisprudence in India.

13. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

o Judgment: The Supreme Court emphasized sustainable development and

ordered the closure of tanneries in Tamil Nadu for violating environmental
norms.

B. Forms of Legal Entities

14. Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd. (1897)

 o Judgment: Established the principle of separate legal entity of a corporation,
emphasizing that a company is distinct from its shareholders.

C. Criminal Laws in India

15. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)

o Judgment: A landmark case in Indian criminal law, where the Supreme Court
ruled on the application of the exception of provocation under Section 300 of
the Indian Penal Code.

16. R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884)

o Judgment: This case established the legal principle that necessity is not a
defense to homicide, setting the boundaries for criminal liability.

State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George

The court said that even though mens rea is an essential requirement to commit a crime but
regardless of that the statutory provision can exclude the mental element. The express
words of the statute can exclude the mens rea as an essential ingredient of the crime. This
may be done for various reasons, for instance, to promote public welfare and activities or to
eradicate social evils. The statute which complies strict liability helps the offender to assist
the state in the enforcement of the law.

Re Sreerangayee case (1973)

The woman in sheer destitution and impoverishment attempted to kill herself after failing in
all the ways to arrange for food for her starving children, but since she knowingly (mens rea)
did a prohibitive act of attempting suicide (actus reus), she was held guilty by the court.

Sahoo v. State of U.P.

When it is made to the court itself then it will be called judicial confession, and when it is
made to anybody outside the court, it will be called extra-judicial confession. It may even
consist of conversation to oneself, which may be produced in evidence if overheard by
another. Through this case the statement was held to be a confession relevant in evidence,
for it is not necessary for the relevancy of a confession that it should be communicated to
some other person.

K.R. Reddy v. The Public Prosecutor SC

Dying declaration

Unit 5: Concept of Human Rights

A. Human Rights in India

 Mohini Jain case- The Supreme Court in the case of Mohini Jain case
ruled that right to education is a fundamental right that flows from
right to life in Article 21 of the constitution.
Olga Tellis and Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors.,
popularly known as the ‘Pavement Dwellers Case’ held that ‘right to
livelihood’ is borne out of ‘right to life’, as no person can live without
means of living, that is, means of livelihood. It recognized right to
livelihood to be part of Article 21.

Unit 6: International Law

The North Sea Continental Shelf cases confirmed that both State practice (the objective
element) and opinio juris (the subjective element) are essential pre-requisites for the
formation of a customary law rule.

Magan Bhai Patel Case: If an international treaty restricts citizen rights, the Indian
government needs to pass a law for it.

Sheela Barse Case: The Supreme Court ruled that India’s ratification of international
conventions on child protection created an obligation on the state to follow those
conventions, as they did not contradict existing laws.

Vishaka Case: The Indian courts used an international treaty( CEDAW) on women's rights to
create laws against sexual harassment, which became binding in India.

Unit 8: Legal Services

24. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)

o Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled on the right to free legal aid under
Article 21 of the Constitution, holding that prisoners under trial should not be
denied legal representation due to poverty.