Name of the case / Ratio of the case
1. Bijoe
Emmanuel v State of Kerela 1986 The Court held that the right of free speech
and expression also includes the right to remain silent and that only standing
for the national anthem showed proper respect.
2. Rajbala v State of Haryana 2015 The constitutionality of the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act 2015 was upheld. The Act disbarred persons in Haryana from the right to contest panchayat elections on the basis of certain restrictions like educational qualifications, arrears clause, etc.
3. K.
Veeraswami v Union of India 1991 No FIR against a HC/SC judge unless President
consults CJI and CJI allows it
4. Delhi
Judicial Service Association v/s State of Gujarat 1991 Guidelines against
arrest of a judicial officer; permission of District Judge or HC judge required
5. S.P.
Gupta v UOI (First Judges case) 1981 Consultation under A.124 does not mean
concurrence
6.
Supreme Court Advocates on Record v UOI (Second Judges case) 1993 Consultation
under A.124 does not mean concurrence; Collegium system evolved (1 + 2 = CJI +
Two senior-most judges)
7. In Re
Presidential Reference 1998 (Third Judges case) Collegium means– CJI + 4
senior-most judges
8.
Supreme Court Advocates on Record v UOI (Fourth Judges case) 2015 Primacy of
the CJI in judicial appointments upheld. National Appointments Judicial
Commission Act struck down as unconstitutional. 99th Amendment to the
Constitution struck down.
9. Naresh
Mirajkar v State of Maharashtra 1966 Judiciary a State while performing
administrative functions; not while performing judicial functions
10.
Vishaka v State of Rajasthan 1997 Guidelines pertaining to sexual harassment of
women at workplace (2013 Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act codifies these
guidelines )
11.
Sahara v SEBI 2012 Doctrine of postponement; Postponing media publications to
ensure fair trail
12.
Sharaya Bano v Union of India 2017 Triple Talaq unconstitutional
13. NALSA
v Union of India 2014 Transgenders as third gender; to be given govt jobs under
OBC category
14.
Shankari Prasad v Union of India 1951 Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights;
Law under Article 13 does not include a constitutional amendment
15.
Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan 1964 Question posed - can Parliament amend
the basic structure?
16. Golak
Nath v State of Punjab 1967 Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights; Under
Article 13(2), law includes a constitutional amendment Doctrine of prospective
overruling laid down Diluted by 24th Amendment 1971; Law does not include
constitutional amendment as per Article 13(4) and Article 368(3)inserted by
24th Amendment, 1971
17.
Keshvananda Bharti v State of Kerela 1973 Parliament can amend Fundamental
Rights; cannot amend the basic structure; Part of Article 31C which barred
judicial review struck down
18.
Minerva Mills v UOI 1980 Articles 368(4) & 368(5) struck down; Part of
Article 31C struck down which gave primacy to all Directive Principles over
Fundamental Rights ; Harmony between DPSP’s and FR’s emphasized
19. Ajay
Hasia v Khalid Mujib 1980
20. RD
Shetty v International Airport Authority 1980 Test for determining ‘other
authority’ under Article 12
21. AK
Gopalan v State of Madras 1950 Procedure established by law under A. 21 does
not mean due process of law
22.
Maneka Gandhi v UOI 1978 Procedure established by law under A. 21 means due
process of law; Right to go abroad – a facet of A.21
23.
Attorney General of India v Lachma Devi 1985 Public hanging is violative of
Article 21
24. K.
Puttuswamy v UOI 2017 Right to privacy a facet of A.21
25.
Balaji Raghavan v UOI 1995 National awards such as Bharat Ratna, Padma
Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri (hereinafter called "The National
Awards") are "Titles" within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the
Constitution of India
26. State
of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar 1951 There must be a nexus between the
classification and the object of the Act which makes the classification
27. M.R.
Balaji v State of Mysore 1962 A special provision of reservation should be less
than 50%. Caste can be one of the criteria with other criteria such as place of
habitation, poverty, etc. to determine backwardness but caste cannot be the
sole factor
28.
Indira Sawhney v Union of India 1993 Reservations in promotion not permissible;
diluted by Article 16(4A) via 77th Amendment Creamy layer test not applicable
to SC/ST’s Reservation beyond 50% not permissible Caste is a predominant test
for assessing backwardness Carry-forward rule for vacancies not permissible.
Diluted by Article 16(4B) via 81st Amendment Upheld 27% reservation for OBC’s
in public offices
29. Ajit
Singh v State of Punjab 1999 Getting reservation in promotion does not grant
consequential seniority for SC/ST candidates; 'Catch up rule’ was laid down
under which senior general candidates who were promoted after SC/ST candidates
would regain their seniority over SC/ST candidates promoted; Diluted by
addition of a clause “with consequential seniority” in Article 16(4A) via 85th
Amendment
30. M.
Nagraj v Union of India 2006 Reservation in promotion can be allowed if three
tests factors are shown: a) Demonstrate backwardness b) Demonstrate inadequacy
of representation c) Overall efficiency of the administration should not get
compromised Held per incuriam (in Jarnail Singg v Lachmi Narain Gupta) to
the extent that
it asks for
demonstrating backwardness for
SC/ST’s as it goes against Indira Sawhney finding that there need not be shown any data for
backwardness for SC/ST’s
31.
Jarnail Singg v Lachmi Narain Gupta 2018 Holds M Nagraj per incuriam to the
extent it asks for data to demonstrate backwardness of SC/ST’s
32. Ashok
Thakur v Union of India 2008 "Caste" is often used interchangeably
with “class” and can be called as the basic unit in social stratification.
Creamy layer principle cannot be applied to STs and SCs, as they are a
separate backward class by themselves. The question was restricted to whether
Article 15(5), insofar as it applied to State institutions, violated the basic structure.
That part of Article 15(5) which referred to private, unaided
educational institutions was excluded from the scope of the enquiry. Court
upheld the application of the provision to State institutions. Upheld 27% quota
for OBC’s in educational institutions
33. State
of Madras v Champakam Dorairajan 1951 Admission to medical and engineering
colleges in Madras in a proportion, based upon caste and religion, were challenged. Court rejected the argument that
A.46 could be used to provide reservations since irective Principles could not
go against Fundamental Rights of citizens. Diluted by addition of Article 15(4)
via the 1st Amendment 1951.
34.
Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka 1992 There is a fundamental right to education
at all levels (primary, secondary and higher) and that the state was under a
constitutional mandate to provide educational institutions at all those levels.
The Court held that if government seats are filled by charging X amount, it is
the state’s responsibility to ensure that all other institutions that are set
up with government permission and have obtained recognition from the
government, also charge the same amount as fees.
35. Unni
Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993 Reconsidered Mohini Jain. Held
that the right to education only extends to children up to the age of 14 years.
Private institutions had a right under Article 19(1)(g) that entitled them to
complete autonomy. Profit making was essential for them to flourish. However,
laid down certain restrictions/conditions with respect to fees charged by private educational
institutions. These conditions included the fees to be charged and the
seat-sharing ratio between the government and private institutions.
36. TMA
Pai v State of Karnataka 2002 Setting up of an educational institution would be
an “occupation” under Article 19(1)(g). The scheme framed by Unni
Krishnan was illegal and unconstitutional. Overruled Unni Krishnan to that
extent. State cannot regulate the admission policies of unaided educational
institutions run by minorities. However, some rules can be prescribed to
maintain academic standards. Minority institutions will have to admit to a
reasonable extent non- minority students in their institutions.
37.
Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka 2003 Held that the state can
provide reservation in favour of
financially or socially backward sections of society. In order to ensure
transparency in admission and fee structure, the Court resorted to the setting
up of committees to give effect to the judgment in TMA Pai.
38. P.A
Inamdar v State of Maharashtra The bench was set up to clarify a) the ratio of
TMA Pai (11 judge bench verdict) b) to examine the correctness of Islamic
Academy Case Court held that setting up
of committees to fix fee structure,
seats, etc. in private educational institutions ran contrary to the judgment in
TMA Pai. Hence overruled Islamic Academy to that extent. State can’t impose its
reservation policy on minority and non- minority unaided private colleges, including professional colleges. Incorporation of
Article 15(5) via the 93rd Amendment
diluted the ratio of PA Inamdar and TMA Pai. State could now provide ‘by
law’ reservations in state as well private (aided or unaided) educational
institutions. However, minority educational institutions were left out.
39. L.
Chandra Kumar v UOI Judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the
Constitution. Held 323A Clause 2(d) and 323B Clause 3(d) struck down as it
affected powers of High Court of judicial review
40. Waman
Rao v Union of India 1981 All laws put under the 9th Schedule of the Constitution before the date of
Kesavananda Bharti’s decision i.e. April 24th, 1973 will be immune from
judicial review. All laws put under the 9th Schedule after Keshvananda Bharti
will be open to challenge on the ground of violation of basic structure
doctrine.
41. I.R
Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu 2007 Twofold test laid down to determine the
validity of any law put under the 9th Schedule: a) Whether the law violates
Fundamental Rights? b) Whether the violation also results in violation of the
basic structure of the Constitution? If yes, the law will be struck down. Held
some fundamental rights to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution
but stopped short of holding all fundamental rights to be part of the basic
structure.
42. P
Rathinam v UOI 1994 S. 30 of IPC is a a cruel and irrational provision, and it
may result in punishing a person again (doubly) who has suffered agony and
would also be suffering ignominy because of his failure to commit suicide.
Consequently, it was held that the section was violative of Article 21, hence
unconstitutional. However, the bench did not favour euthanasia.
43. Gian
Kaur v State of Punjab 1996 "Right to life" under Article 21 is
inherently inconsistent with the "right to die" as is
"death" with "life". In furtherance, the right to life,
which includes right to live with human dignity, would mean the existence of such a right up
to the natural end of life. It may further include "death with
dignity" but such existence should not be confused with unnatural
extinction of life curtailing natural
span of life. Overruled P. Rathinam v UOI.
44. Aruna
Shanbaug v UOI 2011 The SC issued a set of broad guidelines legalizing passive
euthanasia in India. It held that the decision to withdraw treatment,
nutrition, or the decision to discontinue life support must be taken by
parents, spouse, or other close relatives, or in the absence of them, by a
"next friend". This decision requires approval from the concerned
High Court.
45.
Common Cause v UOI 2018 Right to die with dignity is a fundamental right.
Passive euthanasia is permissible, not active euthanasia. The difference
between ‘active’ and passive’ euthanasia is that in active euthanasia something
is done to end the patient’s life while in passive euthanasia, something is not
done that would have preserved the patient’s life. Court also upheld the
validity of a living will. Living will is a written document that allows a
patient to give explicit instructions in
advance a out the medical treatment to be administered when he or she is
terminally ill or no longer able to express informed consent. It includes
authorizing their families to switch off life support in case a medical board
declared that they were beyond medical help. (Mental Healthcare Act under S.
115 decriminalizes suicide)
46.
Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillu 1992 Held para 7 of the 10th Schedule (inserted by
52nd Amendment 1985) of the Constitution as ultra vires as it excluded judicial
review.
47.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain 1975 Held 39th Amendment (A.329A) as
unconstitutional and violative of basic structure.
48.
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v UOI 1982 Where a person provides labour
or service to another for remuneration which is less than the minimum wage, the labour or service provided
by him clearly falls within the scope and ambit of the words 'forced labour'
under Article 23.
49.
Santosh Kumar v Secretary, Ministry of HRD 1995 Teaching o Sanskrit alone as an
elective subject in CBSE can in no way be regarded as against secularism.
Indeed, our Constitution requires giving of fillip to Sanskrit because of what has been stated in Article 351, in which
while dealing with the duty of the Union to promote the spread of Hindi it has
been provided that it would draw,
whenever necessary or desirable, for its vocabulary, primarily on
Sanskrit. Encouragement to Sanskrit is also necessary because of it being one
of the languages included in the Eighth Schedule.
50. Rev.
Stanislaus v State of M.P 1977 The right to propagate religion under Article 25
does not include the right to convert by fraud or deceit or allurement and
therefore upheld the constitutional validity of the laws enacted by Madhya
Pradesh and Orissa legislatures prohibiting conversion by force, fraud or
allurement.
51.
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India 2002 Court mandated the
disclosure of information relating to criminal antecedents, educational
qualification, and personal assets of a candidate contesting elections.
52. Lok
Prahari v UOI 2018 Centre directed to amend the rules as well as the disclosure
form filed by candidates along with their nomination papers,
to include the sources of their income, and those of their spouses and
dependants and disclosure of government contracts where candidates or their associates
have direct or indirect interests.
53. Lily
Thomas v UOI 2013 S. 8(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 was
prospectively (i.e. from the date of the decision) struck down as
unconstitutional being beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament.
Section 8(4) provided that if a MP or a MLA has been convicted of a criminal
offence, such MP or MLA can continue to remain, and discharge his or her duties
as, a member of the House, if within three months of the conviction, he or she
has filed an appeal or a revision against such conviction. This protection is
no more available to MP’s and MLA’s and thus on conviction they lose their
seat.
54.
Abhiram Singh v C.D. Commachen 2017 Section 123 (3) of the Act prohibits any
candidate, his agent, or any person consented by such candidate or his agent,
from soliciting votes, or discouraging voters against voting for a rival
candidate, on grounds of religion,
race, caste, community or language, by declaring such conduct as a
‘corrupt practice’. The court has read this provision to disallow any reference
to the religion, race, caste, community or language, of the candidate, or of
his rivals, or of the voters to secure votes, or prejudice the electorate
against a rival in an election.
55.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v UOI 2018 MP's or MLA's cannot be barred from
practising in courts. Legislators cannot be styled or characterized as
full-time salaried employees for there is no relationship of employer
and employee. (Bar Council of India Rules prohibit an advocate from
being a full time salaried employee of any person, government, firm,corporation
or concern, so long as he continues to practice.)
56.
Public Interest Foundation v UOI 2018 Politicians cannot be barred from
contesting elections on framing of charges. Guidelines issued to prevent
criminalisation of politics: First, while filing their nominations, the
candidates must declare if there are pending criminal cases againsthem i
courts. Second, political parties are also responsible for putting up details
of criminal cases filed against their candidates on their websites. Third,
Parliament must legislate on the matter to ensure that candidates with criminal
antecedents do not enter public life or become lawmakers.
57. Sarla
Mudgal v UOI 1995 Emphasized on the need for a Uniform Civil Code
58. In Re
Keshav Singh 1965 It could not be disputed that in the matters of
privileges, the House was the sole and
exclusive Judge provided such privilege could be found in Article 194(3). The
question whether a privilege as claimed by the House was provided by Article 194(3) or not, was a matter for the
Court to decide. The nature and scope of Article 194(3), was thus, to be
determined by the Court. The Court also observed that such privileges were
necessarily subject to Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
59. P.V
Narsimha Rao v State 1998 The court held that those who took bribe but did not
vote will be liable for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act as
they were not protected or entitled to the immunity under A. 105(2) of the
Constitution, whereas those who voted will be protected even though they had
taken bribes.
60.
Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India 2018 Supreme Court allowed
live-streaming of court proceedings
61.
Shreya Singhal v UOI 2015 SC struck down Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech, on grounds of
violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India.
62.
Joseph Shine v UOI 2018 Section 497 (adultery) of the Indian Penal Code is a
codified rule of patriarchy. The Bench held Section 198 (2) of the CrPC, which gives the husband the exclusive
right to prosecute his wife’s lover, manifestly arbitrary.
63. K.
Puttuswamy v UOI 2018 Upheld Aadhaar as a reasonable restriction on
individual privacy. Upholding the passage of the Aadhaar Act as a Money
Bill the majority opinion upheld the PAN-Aadhaar linkage, but declared linking
Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile SIM cards unconstitutional. The card was
not necessary for children aged between six and 14 under the Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan as right to education was a fundamental right. Statutory bodies like
CBSE and UGC cannot ask students to produce their Aadhaar cards for
examinations like NEET and JEE. Section 57 of the Aadhar Act was struck down as
it was used by the government to compel private companies to demand Aadhaar
verification for services.
64.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerela 2018 Exclusion of women from
the temple of Lord Ayappa was a discriminatory practice which violates the
freedom of religion of women devotees. Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not
constitute a separate religious denomination and the prohibition on women is
not an essential part of Hindu religion. Also exclusion based on the notion of
impurity (menstruation) is a form of untouchability.
65.
Navtej Johar v UOI S. 377 IPC is irrational, indefensible and arbitrary. The
sexual orientation of each individual in the society must be protected on an
even platform, for the right to privacy and the protection of sexual
orientation lies at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles
14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. Respect for individual choice is the very
essence of liberty under law. Section 377 IPC assumes the characteristic of
unreasonableness, for it becomes a weapon in the hands of the majority to
seclude, exploit and harass the LGBT community
66. Olga
Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985 Right to livelihood is a facet of
Article 21 of the Constitution
67. John
Vallotam v UOI 1997 Court declared S.118 of the Indian Succession Act
unconstitutional as violating of Article 14 of the Constitution. It restricted
the right of a Christian having a nephew or
niece or any other relative as
regards his power to bequeath his property for religious or charitable
purposes. 68. D.C Wadhwa v State of Bihar 1987 The power to make an ordinance
is to meet an extraordinary situation and it should not be made to meet
political ends of an individual. Re-promulgation from time to time is a
subversion of the democratic process and a fraud on the Constitution. If
Ordinance making was made a usual practice, creating an ‘Ordinance raj’ the
courts could strike down re-promulgated Ordinances.
69.
Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar 2017 The Court held that the requirement
of placing the ordinance before the Legislature is mandatory. re-promulgation
of ordinances is a fraud on the Constitution and a subversion of democratic
legislative processes. The court also held that the satisfaction of the
President under Article 123 and of the
Governor under Article 213 while issuing ordinances is not immune from judicial
review.
70. A.K
Roy v UOI 1982 President’s Ordinance making power is not beyond the scope of
judicial review however the need to exercise judicial review over the
President’s decision arises only when there were substantial grounds to
challenge the decision, and not at “every casual and passing challenge”.
71. ADM
Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla 1976 The issue was whether an order issued by the
President under Article 359(1) of the Constitution suspends the right of every
person to move any Court for the enforcement of the right to personal liberty
under Article 21 upon being detained
under a law providing for. The
court answered in the affirmative. Overruled in K Puttuswamy v UOI.
72. B.P
Singhal v UOI 2010 The President, in effect the central government, has the
power to remove a Governor at any time without giving him or her any reason,
and without granting an opportunity to be
heard. However, this power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable manner. The power of removing Governors should only
be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling
reasons. The mere reason that a Governor is at variance with the policies and
ideologies of the central government, or that the central government has lost
confidence in him or her, is not sufficient to remove a Governor. Thus, a
change in central government cannot be a ground for removal of Governors, or to
appoint more favourable persons to this post. A decision to remove a Governor
can be challenged in a court of law.
73. Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India 2012 Every citizen has a right to establish and administer schools under Article 19(1)(g) so long as the activity remains charitable. Such an activity undertaken by private schools supplements the primary obligation of the State. The State can regulate by law the activities of private schools, including admission, by imposing reasonable restrictions in the public interest under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The quota obligation imposed on private unaided non-minority schools is in the public interest and is a reasonable restriction for the purposes of Article 19(6). Therefore, the Right to Education Act shall apply to private unaided non-minority schools. Regarding unaided minority schools, Article 29(1) of the Constitution protects the right of minorities to conserve their language, script or culture, anArticle 30(1) protects their right to establish and administer schools of their choice. Imposing a quota on such schools would result in changing their character and would therefore violate these minority rights. Therefore, the RTE Act shall not apply to unaided minority schools. Regarding government-aided minority schools, Article 29(2) of the Constitution protects every citizen’s right of admission into a State-aided school. Accordingly, the RTE Act shall apply to aided minority schools.
74.
Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v UOI 2014 Society for Unaided Private
Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr. insofar as it holds that the
2009 Act is applicable to aided minority schools is overruled. Constitution
(93rd Amendment) Act, 2005 inserting clause (5) of Article 15 of the
Constitution and the Constitution (86th Amendment) Act, 2002 inserting Article
21A of the Constitution do not alter the basic structure or framework of the
Constitution and are constitutionally valid. RTE Act is not ultra vires Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
75. S.R
Bommai v UOI 1994 The SC laid down
certain guidelines so as to prevent the misuse of A356 of the
constitution. Based on the report of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre–state
Relations(1988), the Supreme Court enlisted the situations where
the exercise of power under Article 356 could be proper or improper. lso held
that Secularism is one of the basic features of the Constitution. Secularism is
a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions. Any State government
which pursues nonsecular policies or nonsecular course of action acts contrary
to the constitutional mandate and renders itself amenable to action under
Article 356.
76.
Ismail Faruqui v UOI 1995 The power of acquisition is the sovereign or
prerogative power of the State to acquire property. Such power exists
independent of Article 300A of the Constitution or the earlier Article 31 of the Constitution which merely indicate the
limitations on the power of acquisition by the State. Such acquisition per se
does not violate Articles 25 or 26 of the Constitution. What is protected under
Articles 25 and 26 is a religious practice which forms an essential and
integral part of religion. A practice may be a religious practice but not an
essential part of religious practice. While offer of prayer or worship is a
religious practice, its offering at every location where such prayers can be
offered would not be an essential or integral part of such religious practice
unless the place has a particular significance for that religion so as to form
an essential or integral part thereof.
77. S.P.
Mittal v UOI 1983 The words "religious denomination" in Article 26 of
the Constitution must take their colour from the word 'religion' and if this be
so, the expression religious denomination" must also satisfy three
conditions: (i) It must be a collection of individuals who has a system of
beliefs or doctrine which they regard as conducive to their spiritual
well-being, that is, a common faith; (ii) Common organisation: and (iii)
Designation by a distinctive name.
78. The
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindar Thirtha Swamiyar of Shri
Shirur Mutt 1954 The Court, laid down the essential practice test. It observed
what constitutes an essential part of a religion will be ascertained with
reference to the tenets and doctrines of that religion itself. The essential
religious practise test means that any religious practise which forms the basis
or is so essential to that religion that it will fall within the protection of
Article 25 and 26 should be protected as such. Any other activity not an
essential practice does not require protection and will be covered in
exceptions to the right to religion. There are certain exceptions which are
given in the Constitution itself like economic, political, and financial or
other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice.
79. Selvi
v State of Karnataka 2010 Court declared that three prominent police
interrogation techniques narco-analysis, the lie-detector test, and brain-
mapping - violated an accused person’s right against self- incrimination under
Article 20(3), and her right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution. A forcible administration
of the above
tests would be
an unjustified intrusion into
mental privacy and could lead to further stigma for the victim.
80. M.C.
Mehta v UOI 1986 Laid down the concept of Public Liability and Absolute
Liability. 81. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v State of
Uttar Pradesh 1987 Laid down the concept of sustainable development.
82.
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India 1999 Laid down Polluter
Pays principle.
83.
Animal Welfare Board of India v A. Nagaraj 2014 Court prohibited Jallikattu and
other animal races and fights. Held that animal fights incited by humans are
illegal, even those carried out under the guise of tradition and culture.
84.
Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar 1991 Right to life includes the right of
enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life.
85. D.K
Basu v State of West Bengal 1997 Court laid down specific guidelines required
to be followed by police while making arrests
86.
Sheela Barse vs. State of Maharashtra 1983 Court laid down guidelines
conferring protection to women prisoners in police lock ups
87. Prem
Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P. Allahabad 1963 The court held that an
order which this Court can make in order to do complete justice under Article
142 between the parties, must not only
be consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but
it cannot even be inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the relevant
statutory laws. 88. Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India 1991 The court held
that prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary law
cannot, ipso facto, act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional
powers under Article 142
89.
Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India 1998 Court observed that powers under
Article 142 cannot, in any way, be
controlled by any statutory provisions but at the same time these powers are
not meant to be exercised when their exercise may come directly in conflict
with what has been expressly provided for in a statute dealing expressly with
the subject. It was said that the said article could not be used to supplant
the existing law, but only to supplement the law.
90.
Subhash Mahajan v State of Court laid down guidelines to prevent abuse of the
Scheduled Maharashtra 2018 Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989 (SC/ST Act). Held no absolute bar on anticipatory bail,
arrest to be made after a preliminary inquiry, public servant cannot be
arrested without prior sanction. Diluted by amendments made to the Act in 2018.
91. Govt.
of NCT Delhi v UOI 2018 The Court held that Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi
is bound by the aid and advice of the elected Government of Delhi except in
matters of land, police and public order. While holding so, the Court has
observed that in a democracy, real power must vest in the elected
representatives and Lt. Governor cannot interfere in every decision of the Delhi
Government. The words “any matter” employed in the proviso to clause (4) of
Article 239AA cannot be inferred to mean “every matter”.
92. Maru
Ram v Union of India 1980 Court held that the power under Article 72 is to be
exercised on the advice of the Central
Government and not by the President on his own, and that the advice of the
Government binds the head of the Republic.
93. Kehar
Singh v Union of India 1989 The court laid down that the order of the President
cannot be subjected to judicial review on its merits except within the strict
limitations defined n Maru Ram.
94. Epru
Sudhakar v Govt of A.P. 2006 It is a well-set principle that a limited judicial
review of exercise of clemency powers is available to the Supreme Court and
High Courts. Granting of clemency by the President or Governor can be challenged on the following grounds:
The order has been passed without application of mind. The order is mala fide.
The order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations.
Relevant material has been kept out of consideration. The order suffers from
arbitrariness
95.
Triveniben v State of Gujarat 1989 n undue long delay in execution of the
sentence would entitle the convict to approach the Supreme Court under Article
32 or the High Court under Article 226 and get his sentence commuted.
96.
Shatrughan Chauhan v UOI 2014 The court observed that an inordinate and
inexplicable delay in execution would preclude carrying out the sentence even
in cases where the convict in question had committed an offence of terrorism.
Overruled Devender Singh Bhullar v. State of NCT Delhi 2013 which had ruled
that a delay in disposing of a mercy petition was, by itself, insufficient
ground for commuting the sentence of those convicted to death under
anti-terrorism statutes.
97. Union
of India v. Tulshiram Patel 1985 The Court held that the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank
of a person convicted on criminal charges is in public interest, and therefore
not violative of Art. 311(2) or Article 14 of the Constitution
98.
Parshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India 1957 Article 311 is available only
when ‘dismissal, removal, reduction in rank is by way of punishment.’ So it i
difficult to determine as to when an order of termination of service or reduction
in rank amounts to punishment. The Supreme Court laid down 2 tests to determine
when termination is by way of punishment – Whether the servant had a right to
hold the post or the rank? Whether he has been visited with evil consequences?
If a government servant had a right to hold the post or rank under the terms of
any contract of service, or under any rule, governing the service, then the
termination of his service or reduction in rank amounts to a punishment and he
will be entitled to protection under Article 311. Articles 310 and 311 apply to
Government servants, whether permanent, temporary, officiating or on probation.
The procedure laid down in Article 311 is intended to assure, first, a measure
of tenure to government servants, who are covered by the Article and secondly
to provide certain safeguards against arbitrary dismissal or removal of a
government servant or reduction to a lower rank.
99. Union
of India v. Balbir Singh 1998 The
Supreme Court held
that the Court
can examine the
circumstances on which
the satisfaction of
the president or Governor is taken under proviso to Article
311(2). If the Court finds that the circumstances have no bearing whatsoever on
the security of State, the Court can hold that satisfaction of the President or
the Governor which is required for passing such an order has been vitiated by
wholly extraneous or irrelevant considerations.
100. Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India 2017 Chief Justice is the master of the roster. Followed the ratio of State of Rajasthan v.Prakash Chand (1998).
