The Supreme Court of India has delivered several landmark judgments that have significantly impacted Indian law and society. Here’s an overview of some of the most notable ones:

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):

Kesavananda Bharati, the petitioner, was the head of a religious institution in Kerala. He challenged the constitutionality of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which aimed to limit the extent of land ownership and redistribute land to tenants and the landless.

Issue:

The extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court of India delivered a majority opinion on April 24, 1973.

The Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its “basic structure.” This doctrine of basic structure was established as a limit on the amending power.

Doctrine of Basic Structure:

Basic Structure: The Court identified certain fundamental features of the Constitution that cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments. These include:

• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Republican and democratic form of government
• Separation of powers
• Secularism
• Federalism
• Fundamental Rights

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):

Maneka Gandhi, a prominent activist and journalist, challenged the decision of the Indian government to impound her passport. The action was taken under the Passport Act, 1967, without providing her a reason for the impoundment or an opportunity to contest the decision.

Issue:

The key issue was whether the impounding of Gandhi’s passport without due process violated her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

Judgment:

Expanded the interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty, emphasizing that any law affecting these rights must be fair, just, and reasonable.

Significance:

• The Maneka Gandhi case significantly impacted Indian constitutional jurisprudence by establishing the principle that fundamental rights, particularly the right to personal liberty, cannot be curtailed without adhering to principles of procedural fairness.

• It expanded the interpretation of Fundamental Rights and ensured greater protection of individual liberties against arbitrary state actions.

Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997):

Vineet Narain, a journalist, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking judicial intervention to ensure effective prosecution of high-profile corruption cases. His petition was prompted by concerns about the government’s failure to prosecute politicians and bureaucrats involved in corruption.

Issue:

The central issue was whether the government was failing in its duty to investigate and prosecute corruption cases, and if so, whether the Court could mandate specific measures to ensure accountability and transparency in such investigations.

Judgment:

The Vineet Narain v. Union of India case (1997) is a significant Supreme Court judgment that addressed issues related to corruption, accountability, and the enforcement of laws.

Significance:

Strengthening Anti-Corruption Measures; The case was instrumental in reinforcing the legal framework for tackling corruption in India. It highlighted the judiciary’s role in ensuring that corruption cases are not only investigated but also prosecuted effectively.

Judicial Oversight: The ruling established a precedent for judicial oversight in matters of public interest, especially concerning the enforcement of laws and protection of constitutional values.

Institutional Reforms: The directions issued by the Court led to significant reforms in the way corruption cases are handled, including improvements in the functioning of investigative agencies like the CBI.

Public Interest Litigation: The case underscored the importance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a tool for addressing systemic issues and holding authorities accountable.

Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):

The Indira Sawhney v. Union of India case (1992) is a landmark Supreme Court judgment in India that addressed issues related to affirmative action and reservations in public employment and educational institutions.

Issue:

The legality of reservations in employment and education.

Judgment; Affirmative Action and Reservations:

• The Court upheld the validity of reservations for OBCs, emphasizing that affirmative action is permissible under the Constitution to uplift historically disadvantaged groups.

The 50% Cap on Reservations:

• The Court established a 50% limit on the total percentage of reservations in public employment and educational institutions. This means that the combined total of reservations (including SC/ST and OBC) should not exceed 50% of the total seats.

Creamy Layer Exclusion:

• The Court introduced the concept of the “creamy layer” within OBCs. The term refers to the relatively affluent and advanced members of the OBC community who are considered to have benefited from the reservations and should be excluded from the reservation benefits to ensure that those who are truly disadvantaged benefit from affirmative action. Implementation of the Mandal Report:

• The Court endorsed the implementation of the Mandal Commission’s recommendations with the aforementioned modifications. This included reserving 27% of seats for OBCs in central government jobs and educational institutions, excluding the creamy layer.

Equal Opportunity:

• The Court reiterated that while reservations are meant to provide equal opportunities, they should not become a tool for perpetuating inequality. The goal of affirmative action is to level the playing field for disadvantaged groups.

Significance:

• Affirmative Action Policy; The ruling reinforced the Constitution’s commitment to social justice and affirmative action, allowing for targeted policies to uplift marginalized communities while setting limits to balance overall fairness.

• Reservation Limits; By setting the 50% cap, the Court aimed to prevent excessive reservations that could potentially undermine meritocracy and fairness in public institutions.

• Creamy Layer Doctrine; The introduction of the creamy layer concept was a significant development, ensuring that the benefits of reservation are directed towards the genuinely disadvantaged members of OBC communities.

• Impact on Policy and Society; The judgment had a profound impact on the implementation of reservations and affirmative action policies in India. It influenced subsequent policy decisions and legal interpretations related to social justice and equality.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018):

The Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case (2018) is a landmark Supreme Court judgment in India that decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults. This case is significant in the context of LGBTQ+ rights and equality in India.

Issue; The main issue was whether Section 377 IPC, which criminalized consensual homosexual acts, violated fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, including the right to privacy, dignity, and equality.

Judgment; Decriminalization of Homosexual Acts:

• The Court ruled that Section 377 IPC, insofar as it criminalized consensual sexual acts between adults, was unconstitutional. This marked a historic step towards decriminalizing homosexuality in India.

Violation of Fundamental Rights:

• The judgment held that Section 377 IPC violated the fundamental rights to privacy, dignity, and equality as enshrined in Articles 14 (equality before the law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

Right to Privacy:

• The Court recognized that the right to privacy, which had been affirmed in the 2017 Puttaswamy case, includes the right to personal intimacy and consensual adult relationships.

Impact on LGBTQ+ Rights:

• The ruling was a major victory for LGBTQ+ rights activists and individuals, affirming their right to live with dignity and without fear of criminal prosecution for their sexual orientation. Historical Context and Precedents:

• The Court referred to the historical context of Section 377, noting its colonial origins and its continued use as a tool for discrimination. The judgment also built on previous legal principles and international human rights standards.

Inclusivity and Equality:

• The judgment emphasized the need for inclusivity and non-discrimination, reinforcing that all citizens have the right to equal treatment and protection under the law, irrespective of their sexual orientation.

Significance: Legal and Social Impact:

• The judgment was a landmark moment for LGBTQ+ rights in India, effectively decriminalizing same-sex relationships and paving the way for greater acceptance and legal protection of sexual minorities.

Human Rights Progress:

• The case represented a significant advancement in the protection of human rights and individual freedoms, aligning Indian law with global human rights standards. Cultural and Political Repercussions:

• The ruling had profound cultural and political implications, contributing to ongoing debates about LGBTQ+ rights, social acceptance, and equality in India.

Legal Precedent:

• The decision set a crucial precedent for future cases related to personal freedoms and human rights, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional values against outdated and discriminatory laws. The Navtej Singh Johar case is celebrated as a milestone in the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights in India, symbolizing progress towards equality and human dignity.

S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994):

The S. R. Bommai v. Union of India case (1994) is a landmark Supreme Court judgment that fundamentally redefined the application and limits of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the imposition of President’s Rule in states.

Bommai challenged this dismissal, arguing that it was unconstitutional and amounted to an abuse of power.

Issue:

The main issue was whether the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 was justiciable, and if so, to what extent the courts could review such actions and what the limitations on this power were.

Judgment:

• The Court held that the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. While the President’s decision is based on the Governor’s report, the Court can review whether the action was taken on relevant grounds and in good faith.

Limits on Article 356:

• The judgment clarified that the power under Article 356 should not be used for political purposes or to undermine the federal structure of the Constitution. It must be exercised only when there is a genuine breakdown of constitutional machinery.

Federal Structure and Democracy:

• The Court emphasized that the federal structure of the Constitution and the democratic principles underpinning it must be respected. The imposition of President’s Rule should not be used to undermine elected state governments or disrupt the federal balance.

Misuse of Power:

The Court held that the power under Article 356 should not be used arbitrarily or to serve partisan interests. The imposition of President’s Rule must be based on valid and substantial reasons.

Significance:

Strengthening Federalism; The case reinforced the federal structure of the Indian Constitution by ensuring that the power to dissolve state governments is not used arbitrarily. It highlighted the need for respect for federal principles and democratic processes.

Judicial Oversight; The ruling established that actions taken under Article 356 are subject to judicial scrutiny, ensuring accountability and preventing misuse of power.

Political and Constitutional Stability; By setting limits on the use of President’s Rule, the judgment contributed to political and constitutional stability in India, safeguarding the autonomy of state governments.

Precedent for Future Cases; The decision set an important precedent for future cases involving the imposition of President’s Rule, guiding the judiciary on the principles of federalism and democratic governance.

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967):

The case was brought by Golaknath, a landowner in Punjab, who challenged the constitutionality of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. This Act was part of the state’s agrarian reform measures and aimed to limit the amount of land that a person could own and redistribute surplus land to tenants and the landless.

The Golaknath v. State of Punjab case (1967) is a landmark Supreme Court judgment in India that addressed the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, particularly in relation to Fundamental Rights.

Issue:

The primary issue was whether Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution in a way that would alter or violate the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.

Judgment:

Fundamental Rights as Immutable:

The Court ruled that Fundamental Rights are “inalienable” and cannot be abridged or altered by constitutional amendments. This position was grounded in the belief that these rights are essential to the Constitution’s basic framework.

Doctrine of Basic Structure:

Although the specific term “basic structure” was not used in this case (that terminology was introduced later in the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973), the Golaknath judgment implied that Fundamental Rights form a core part of the Constitution that is beyond the reach of Parliament’s amending powers.

Parliament’s Amending Power:

The judgment held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was limited and did not extend to altering or abrogating Fundamental Rights. The Court’s interpretation was that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not change the Fundamental Rights as they form an essential part of the Constitution.

Contrast with Earlier Decisions:

The decision contrasted with earlier interpretations which allowed amendments affecting Fundamental Rights. The judgment represented a departure from previous rulings that were more permissive regarding constitutional amendments.

Significance:

• Limits on Parliamentary Power; The Golaknath case established a critical limitation on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, emphasizing that Fundamental Rights were beyond its reach.

• Foundation for Future Jurisprudence; This case laid the groundwork for the development of the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution, which was later more clearly articulated in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

• Judicial Review and Constitutional Safeguards; The decision reinforced the role of the judiciary in protecting constitutional principles and ensuring that amendments do not undermine fundamental rights.

• Impact on Constitutional Amendments; The ruling had significant implications for how constitutional amendments were approached, leading to greater scrutiny and the recognition that certain core principles of the Constitution are inviolable.

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):

The Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation case (1985) is a landmark Supreme Court judgment in India that addressed the right to livelihood and the impact of evictions on this right. Issue: The right to livelihood and its relation to the right to life.

Judgment:

Recognized the right to livelihood as part of the right to life under Article 21, emphasizing that eviction without alternative arrangements violated this right.

Right to Livelihood:

The Court held that the right to livelihood is indeed a fundamental right that is implied by the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity, and this encompasses the right to earn a livelihood.

Protection Against Arbitrary Evictions:

The Court ruled that while the state has the authority to regulate the use of public spaces and enforce laws, such actions must be carried out in a manner that does not violate fundamental rights. Arbitrary and sudden evictions without providing alternative accommodation or livelihood options were deemed unconstitutional.

Duty to Provide Alternatives:

The judgment emphasized that if the state is to evict individuals from their homes or places of work, it must ensure that adequate alternative arrangements are made to protect their right to livelihood. This could involve providing alternative sites for vendors or compensation for their loss.

Balancing Public Interest and Individual Rights:

The Court acknowledged the need to balance the public interest in maintaining clean and orderly public spaces with the individual rights of those who depend on these spaces for their livelihood. It stressed the need for a fair and humane approach in such situations.

Impact on Policy and Practice:

The Court’s decision was aimed at guiding the BMC and other authorities in their approach to dealing with pavement dwellers and street vendors. It called for a more compassionate and rights-respecting approach, rather than merely focusing on enforcement and removal.

These cases reflect the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation and the Supreme Court’s role in shaping the legal and social landscape of India.