1. Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab,AIR 1955 SC 549
The Supreme Court determined that our Constitution has adopted the system of Parliamentary government of England. Basic principle is that the President is the Constitutional Head of the executive while the actual executive powers are vested in the Council of Ministers.
2. SR. Bommai v. Union ofIndia,AIR 1994 SC 1918
and
Aruna Roy v. Union of India,AIR 2002 SC3176
Secularism is the basic structure of the Constitution.Supreme Court held that the secularism has a positive meaning and it means to develop understanding and respect towards different religion.
3. Excel Wear v. Union of India,AIR 1979 SC 25
And
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India,AIR 1983 SC 130
Courts would give more weightage to the nationalization and state ownership but the principles of socialism should not be interpreted and implemented to the extent it totally ignores the interest of private ownership. Further, Supreme Court held that the basic purpose of socialism is to provide decent standard of life and social security to people.
4. L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India,AIR 1997 SC 1125
Supreme Court has held that exclusion of jurisdiction of courts is unconstitutional. Judicial review is the basic structure of the Constitution and it can never be excluded.
5. InRe Berubari Union case, AIR 1960 SC 845
The Supreme Court held that the Preamble is not the part ofthe Constitution.
6. Keshavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala,AIR 1973 SC 1461
The Supreme Court held that the Preamble is the part of the Constitution. The court held that the Preamble of the Constitution is of extreme importance and the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of the preamble. The court further held that the preamble can be amended without altering the basic structure of the constitution.
7. SajjanSingh v. State of Rajasthan,AIR 1965 SC 845
Supreme Court held that Preamble is the sum and substance of the features of the Constitution.
8. Amar Singh Ji v. State of Rajasthan,AIR 1955 SC 504
The Supreme Court has ruled that at any given point oftime, the territory of India is the area which is specified in the First Schedule under Article 1.
9. Babulal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 51
If the State Legislature to which the Bill has been referred, does not express its views within the period so specified or extended, the Bill may be introduced in the Parliament even though the views of the State have not been obtained by the President. If the State Legislature expresses its views within the time so specified or extended the Parliament is not bound to accept or act upon the views of the State Legislature.
10. Pradeep Jain (Dr) v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420
and
Dr. Yogesh Bharadwaj vs. State of Uttar AIR 1991 SC 356
Supreme Court has held that Article 5 recognizes domicile of India. It does not recognize the concept of State domicile.
11. R C. Cooper v. Union of India,(Bank Nationalization case) AIR 1970 SC 564
Supreme Court held that if the State’s action impairs the rights of shareholders and well as that of company the shareholders will be entitled to protection under Article 19. From this case the Supreme Court adopted a flexible approach in interpreting this aspect.
12. Keshav Madhav Menon v. State of Bombay,AIR 1951SC 128
Supreme Court observed that pre-Constitutional laws exists for all past acts, i.e. prior to commencement of Constitution.
13. Bhikhaji v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 781
Formulated the doctrine of eclipse the court held that under this doctrine the law is overshadowed by fundamental right and remains dormant.
14. Saghir Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 728
The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of eclipse is only applicable to pre-Constitutional laws and not to post Constitutional laws. In Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959) and Mahendra Lal Jain v. State of UP (1963) this view was endorsed by the court.
15. Kihota Hollohan v. Zachillhu, AIR 1993 SC 412
Supreme Court held that 10th Schedule minus Para 7 remains valid and constitutional. The remaining provisions of 10th Schedule are complete in themselves and workable.
16. University of Madras v. Santa Bai, AIR 1954 Mad. 67
Madras High Court held that ‘other authorities’ could only be interpreted by using the principle of ejusdem generis. Therefore, it could only mean authorities exercising governmental or sovereign functions.
17. Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857
Supreme Court rejected the interpretation in Santa Bai’s case and held that the expression ‘other authorities’ is wide enough to include all authorities created by the Constitutionor statute on whom the power is conferred by law. It is not necessary that the authority must be engaged in performing governmental or sovereign function.
18. Siukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331
Supreme Court held that if the functions of the Corporations are of public importance and closely related to government functions then it should be treated as agency or instrumentality of government i.e., State within the meaning of Part III.
19. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. the International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628
Supreme Court followed the broader test laid down in Sukhdev Singh’s case. The court laid down following test to determine whether a body is an agency or instrumentality of the State-
(1) Financial resources of the State is the chief funding source of the body
(2) Existence of deep and pervasive State control.
(3) Functional character of the body is governmental in essence.
(4) Department of government is transferred to the corporation
(5) Whether the Corporation enjoys monopoly status whichis State conferred or State protected.
20. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487
Supreme Court held that a Society registered under the societies Registration Act, 1898, is an agency or instrumentality.
21. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,(1978) 1 SCC 248
The Supreme Court observed that fundamental rights represent the basic values cherished by the people of India and they protect the dignity of an individual and create conditions in which every human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent.
22. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India,AIR 2007 SC 71
The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution has confirmed the existence of fundamental rights and given them protection. Individuals’ possess certain basic human rights independently of any Constitution by reason of the fact that they are humans.
23. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State ofMaharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694
Supreme Court held that fundamental nights represent basic values enriched by the people of India. It is to preserveand protect certain basic human rights against the interference of the State. The object is to ensure inviolability of certain essential rights against political vicissitudes.
24.Behram v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 123
and
Bashesher Nath v. Income Tax Commissioner, AIR 1959SC149
Supreme Court clarified that person cannot waive his Fundamental Rights. This option is not available to him. These rights have not only been enshrined in the Constitution for personal interest but also for benefits of entire society.
25. Ramesh Sanka v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 589
Writ under Article 32 not maintainable for enforcement of personal contractual rights.
26. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan, AIR 1975 SC 2299
Supreme Court held that Rule of Law embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution is the basic feature of the Constitution and it cannot be destroyed by the amendment of the Constitution.
27.R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138
Supreme Court held that Article 14 forbids class-legislation but it does not prohibit reasonable Classification.
28.State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AlR 1952 SC 75
Supreme Court held that differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are two different things. It is important to have nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act.
29.DS Nakara v. Union of India, AlR 1983 SC 130
Supreme Court held that doctrine of classification was evolved to sustain a legislation to State in order to help weaker sections of society.
30.E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555
Article 14 spells the traditional concept of equality which is based on reasonable classification. Supreme Court laiddown a new concept of equality which is different from traditional concept of reasonable classification. Article 14 strikesat the arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness andequality of treatment. Principle of reasonableness pervades Article 14.
31. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorarairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226
Supreme Court declared void the G.O, by Madras government which reserved seats in State Medical and Engineering Colleges for different communities on the basis of religion,race and caste. Supreme Court nullified it because it classified students on the basis of caste and religion.
32. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC355
and
P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 3226
Supreme Court held that State could not make reservations of seats in admissions in privately run educational institutionsand higher educational institutions.
33. Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India,(2008) 6 SCC1
93nd Constitutional Amendment was challenged. TheSupreme Court upheld its constitutionality. The court however, held that the benefits of reservations cannot be given to creamy layer candidates
34. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India , AIR 1993 SC 477
Scope and extent of Article 16(4) was examined thoroughly by Supreme Court. Majority opinion of the court is summarized as follows:
1. Backward class of citizen in Article 16(4) can be identifiedon the basis of caste and not only on economic basis but caste alone cannot be the basis for consideration.
2.The court struck down economic criterion for reservationon the ground that Article 16(4) does not mention it.
3. Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1). It is an instance of classification. Reservation can be made under Article 16(1). Court overruled its decision in Balaji v. State of Mysore in which it was held that Article16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1).
4. Backward classes in Article 16(4) is not similar to socially and educationally backward in Article 15(4). It is much more than socially and educationally backward classes. Certain classes may not qualify for Article 15(4) but they may qualify for Article 16(4). Court overruled Balajï’s decision on this point in which it was held that backward classes of citizens under Article 16(4) is same as socially and educationally backward classes.
5. Creamy layer must be excluded from backward classes.
6. Article 16(4) permits classification of backward classes into backward and more backward classes.
7. Reservation shall not exceed 50 percent. In extra-ordinary situations it may be relaxed in favour of people living in far flung and remote areas of the country.
8. Court overruled Devadasan v. Union of India (1964) and held that ‘carry forward’ rule is valid provided it should not result in breach of 50% rule.
9. Court held that reservation under Article 16(4) cannot be made in promotions.
35. M. Nagraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71
Clause (4A) and Clause (4-B of Article 16) were challenged in The Supreme Court held that Article 16(4A) and Article 16(4B) flow from Article 16 and do not alter the basic structure of
Article 16(4).
36. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473
It is also known as Asiad Project Worker’s case, Supreme Court held that right under Article 17 is available against private individual also.
37. Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj v. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, AIR 2016 SC 867
Rights guaranteed under Article 19 are available to citizens only.
38. Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India,AIR 1973 SC 106
The Supreme Court held that the rights of shareholders with regard to Article 19(1) a were protected and manifested by the newspapers owned and controlled by the shareholdersthrough medium of corporation.
39. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124
Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and of press layat the foundation of all democratic organizations. Without free political discussion no public education for the proper functioning of the process of government is possible.
40. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India,(1985) 1 SCC 641
Supreme Court held that ‘freedom of press’ means freedom from interference from authority which would have effect of interference with the content and circulation of newspapers.
41. Express Newspapers v. Union of India,AIR 1958 SC 578
Supreme Court held that the press is not immune from thelaws of taxation and industrial application.
42. Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India,AIR 1962 SC 305
The order imposing minimum price and number of pages was held to be violative of Article 19(1)(a).
43. Sodán Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1989 SC 1988
Supreme Court held that hawkers have fundamental right to carry on trade on pavement of roads. However, their right subject to reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19(6).
44. Om Prakash v. State of U.P, AIR 2004 SC 1896
Supreme Court held that ban on sale of eggs within the municipal limits of Rikshikesh is valid as it contains reasonable restriction. The reasonability must be construed from pointof view of cultural and religious background of the town.
45.State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Qureshi Kasab Jamat, AIR 2006 SC 212
Supreme Court held that ban on slaughter of cows and calves and other mulch and draught cattle is not violated of Article19(1)(g). It is a reasonable restriction a cow and her progeny are backbone of Indian agriculture and economy.
46. M.P Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300
Supreme Court held that Article 20(3) has following three essentials
(1) Person must be accused of an offence;
(2) This provision is a protection against compulsion to be a witness
(3) Protection is against compulsion to give evidence against himself
47. R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821
A person is said to be accused if the formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been levelled which may result in prosecution and conviction.
48. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu, AIR 1961 SC 1808
Supreme Court held that interpretation of the phrase ‘to be witness’ given in MP. Sharma’s case is too broad. To be witnesses is not equivalent to furnishing evidence. Self-incrimination
can only mean conveying information based on personal knowledge of the person giving information and it cannot include the mechanical process of producing documents or giving finger impressions or blood samples etc.
49. Nandini Satpathy v. PL. Dani, AlR 1977 SC 1025
Supreme Court held that protection of Article 20(3) is available from the stage of police interrogation.
50. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974
Lie detector tests should be administered only with the consent of the accused. In case the consent of the accused is not obtained then such tests are violative of Article 20(3).
51. Indian Hotel and RestaurantAssociation (AHAR) v. State of Maharashtra, (2019)3 SCC429
Supreme Court held that there cannot be a total prohibition of dance bars in Maharashtra. The Bench also relaxed the stringent conditions imposed by the Government for getting license for dance bars. The complete prohibition on serving alcohol in the dance bars was quashed as disproportionate.
52. AK Gopalan v. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC27
Personal liberty in Article 21 means liberty of physical bodyand nothing else. Procedure established by law does not meansdue process of law. Law means state made law and it does
not mean having element of natural justice.
53. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,AIR 1978 SC 597
Personal Liberty in Article 21 is of widest amplitude andcovers variety of rights. The procedure established by lawshould be just, fair and reasonable. Law means having elements of principles of natural justice.
54. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Rtd) and Anr, v. Union of India and Ors.,AIR 2017 SC 4161
Right to privacy: Supreme Court held that right to privacy is a fundamental right and it is protected under Article 21.Court overruled M.P. Sharma’s case and Kharak Singh’s case to the extent they held that right to privacy is not a fundamental right.
55. Justice K.S. Puttaswany (Rtd) and Ant. v.Union of India and Ors.(2019) 1 SCC1
Aadhaar held to be constitutional: Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar after reading down and striking down certain provisions.
56. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39
Offence of Adultery is unconstitutional; Supreme Courtstruck down Section 497 of Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional. Court held that it violated women’s right to dignity and hence it infringed Article 21.
57. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India,(2019) 3 SCC 345
Homo-sexual acts are constitutional: Supreme Courtdeclared Section 377 of Indian Penal Code, unconstitutional in so far as it criminalizes homosexual acts between consenting adults.
58. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473
Non-payment of minimum wages; Supreme Court held thatnon-payment of minimum wages is violation of Article 21.
59. Olga-Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation,AIR 1986-SC 180
Right to livelihood: Supreme Court held that right to lifeInclude right to livelihood also.
60. Chameli Singh v. State of UP, (1996)2 SCC 549
Right to shelter: Supreme Court held that right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21.
61. Suchitra Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, AlR 2010 SC 235
Reproductive choices: Supreme Court held that right tomake reproductive choices (decision to produce child or not) is included in Article 21.
62. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR1989 SC 2039
Right to health: Supreme Court held that all doctors (private or government) are obliged to extend medicalassistance to injure immediately without asking for legalformalities.
63. Ramlila Maidan v. Home Secretary Union of India,(2012) 5SCC1
Right to sleep: Supreme Court held that right to sleep is a fundamental right as it is biological and essential element of basic necessities of life.
64. Jolly George Varghese v. State Bank of Cochin,AIR 1980 SC 470
Arrest of judgment debtor: Supreme Court held that arrest and detention of honest judgment debtor, in absenceof wilful failure to pay despite sufficient means is violatedof Article 21.
65. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996)2 SCC 648
Right to die:Supreme Court held that ‘right to life’ does not include right to die.
66. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaugh v. Union of India, AIR 2011 SC 1290
Passive euthanasia: Supreme Court held that in certaincases passive euthanasia is allowed.
67. National Legal Service Authority v. Unionof India, AIR 2014 SC 1863
Self-determination ofgender: Supreme Court held that self-determination of gender is part of personal liberty guaranteed under Article21.
68. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India,AIR 2011 SC 3361
Child rights: Supreme Court held that sexual, physical andemotional abuse of children detained in circus is violation ofArticle 21.
69. M.H Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra,AJR 1978 SC 1548
Right to free legal aid: Supreme Court held that right tofree legal aid is part and parcel of right to life and liberty.
70. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar,AIR 1979 SC 1360
Right to speedy trial: Supreme Court held that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right and it is implicit in Article21.
71. Nirmal Singh Khalon v. State of Punjab,AIR 2009 SC 984
Fair investigation: Supreme Court held that fair trialincudes fair investigation.
72. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579
Keeping undertrials with convicts: Supreme Court held that keeping under trials with convicts in jail offends Article 21.
73. Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535
Right against handcuffing: Supreme Court held that hand-cuffing is prima facie inhuman, arbitrary and unreasonable.Handcuffing should be resorted to when there is clear and present danger of escape.
74. Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 625
Use of third degree methods: Supreme Court held thatuse of ‘third degree’ method by police is violated of Article21
75. Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC40
Ban on smoking in public places; Supreme Court directed the government to issue orders banning smoking in public places considering the adverse effect of smoking on non-smokers.
76. Attorney-General of India v. Lachma Dev,AIR 1986 SC 467
Public hanging Supreme Court held that execution of death sentence by public hanging is violative of Article 21.
77. Deena v. Union of India, (1983) 4 SCC 645
Hanging by rope; Supreme Court held that hanging byrope does not violate Article 21.
78. TV Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu,AIR 1981 SC 643
Delay in execution of death sentence Supreme Court held that delay in execution of death sentence is violative of Article21.
79. Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa,(1993) 2 SCC 746
Custodial torture/death; Supreme Court awardedcompensation to the family of deceased who died in policeCustody due to beating.
80. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal , AIR 1997 SC610
Supreme Court laid down guidelines to be followed by investigating agencies in cases of arrest and detention.
81. Joginder Kumarv. State of U.P,(1994) 4 SCC260
Supreme Court laid down guidelines regarding arrest of persons during investigation.
82. Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141
Compensation for violation of Article 21: Supreme Courtheld that court have power to award compensation inappropriate cases of violation of Article 21.
83. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan,AIR 1997 SC 3011
Prevention of sexual harassment Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of working womenin workplace.
84. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P,(1985) 2 SCC431
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram Food Fertilizer case), (1986) 2 SCC 176
Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212
Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 650
Right to clean environment: Supreme Court held that rightto clean environment is a fundamental right protected underArticle 21. Consequently, Supreme Court also gave various
Directions regarding upkeep of environment and controlof pollution.
85. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka,(1992) 3 SCC 666
Supreme Court held that right to education at all levels is afundamental right flowing from Article 21.
86. Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P, (1993) 1 SCC 645
Supreme Court held that right to education is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 but right to free education is available to the children until they complete the age of 14years. After that the obligation of State to provide education is Subject to economic capacity and development.
87. State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sundar,(2011) 8 SCC 737
Supreme Court held that the right to education should be extended to have quality education without discriminationon the ground of economic, social and cultural backgrounds.
88. AK Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC710
Supreme Court laid down following guidelines relating to arrest under preventive detention law:
(1) After detention the family members of detune should be informed about detention and place of detention,
(2) Detune must be detained in a place where he habitually resides unless in certain exceptional circumstances detention at other place is feasible.
(3) Detune must be entitled to books, writing materials,own food and visits from family and friends;
4) He must be kept separate from those who are convicted;
(5) Treatment of punitive character should not be meted out to him.
89. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union ofIndia, (2018) 17 SCC324
If there is a conflict of two rights qua individuals underArticle 21 then in such a situation the test of ‘larger public interest’ is required.
90. K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of IndiaAadhaar Case), (2019) 1 SCC1
* Privacy ensures that a human being can lead life of dignity by securing the inner recesses of the human personality from unwanted intrusions. All matters pertaining to an individual do not qualify as being inherent part of right to privacy. Only those matters over which there would be reasonable expectation of privacy are protected by Article21.
* Right to privacy as a fundamental right is not limited toArticle 21. It resonates through the entirety of Part III of the Constitution. Privacy is also recognized as a natural right which in heres in individual and is thus, in alienable.
* Privacy is both negative and positive concept. As a negative concept it restrains the State from committing anintrusion upon life of personal liberty of citizens. As a positive obligation it imposes an obligation on the State to take all necessary measures to protect the privacy of an individual.
* Good and just social order is one which respects dignity.Dignity is to be treated as “empowerment’ or right todevelopment.
91. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1943
Supreme Court held that a person who provides labour or service to another for less than minimum wage also amounts to forced labour.
92. Deena v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1155
Supreme Court held that labour taken from prisoners without paying proper renumeration is violative of Article 23.
93. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v.Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1943
Supreme Court held that construction work is a dangerous work and employment of children in construction industry amounts to violation of Article 24.
94. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 699
Supreme Court held that children below the age of 14 years cannot be employed in any hazardous industry, mines or other works. The court laid down guidelines to protect economic, social and humanitarian rights of children.
95. S.R Bommai v. Union of India,AIR 1994 SC 1918
Supreme Court held that secularism is the basic feature ofthe Constitution. Indian Constitution embodies positive concept of secularism. In matters of religion, the State is neutral and treats every religion equally.
96. Aruna Roy v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 3176
Supreme Court held that study of religion in school is not against secular philosophy of the Constitution. Secularism issusceptible to positive meaning i.e. developing understanding and respect towards different religions.
97. Indian Young lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Temple Case) (2019) 11 SCC1
Right to freedom of religion is not absolute and must be harmonized with other liberties and freedoms, and is subject to constitutional morality.Deity may be a juristic person for purpose of religious law and capable of asserting property rights. However, deity is not a person for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution.
98. TMA. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481
Supreme Court laid down the following
(1) State is to be regarded as a unit for determining linguistic as well as religious minority.
(2) Institutes which receive aid from the State could be subject to government rules and regulations.
3) In respect of unaided institutions only regulation which the government may put is regarding the qualifications and minimum conditions of eligibility of teachers and principal
4) Conditions of recognition and affiliation by or to a Board or University is to be complied with.
(5) An aided institution has to admit a reasonable number of non-minority students.
(6) Minority institution may have its own procedure and method of admission but the procedure must be fair and transparent.
99. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
Supreme Court is protector and guarantor of fundamental rights and it cannot refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringement of such rights.
100. Daryao v. State ofUP, AIR 1961 SC1457
When the matter has been heard and decided by the HighCourt under Article 226 the writ under Article 32 is barred by the principle of res judicata.
101. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, AIR 2002 SC 1771
In order to correct the gross miscarriage of justice which cannot be challenged again, the court will allow curative petition to seek second review of the final order.
102. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AlR 1981 SC 344
In appropriate cases it becomes necessary to change the social awareness of legal rights and social obligations and take abroader view of question of locus standi to initiate proceedings.
103. SP. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149
Any member of public or social group, acting bona fide could invoke the writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court or High Court seeking redressal against violation of legal or constitutional
Rights of those persons who on account of poverty or socio economic disabilities could not approach the court.
104. State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal , AIR 2010 SC 2551
Supreme Court issued following directions in order to maintain the sanctity of public interest litigations
1. The courts must encourage genuine ad bona fide PIL and discourage PlL’s filed for extraneous considerations;
2. The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining PIL;
3. The courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining PIL;
4. The courts should ensure that the PIL involves greater public interest and must be given priority over other;
3.The courts should ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing PILs.
6, the courts should ensure that petition filed by busy body for extraneous considerations and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplarycosts or by adopting methods to curb such frivolous petitions.
105. Randhir Singh v. Union of India,AIR 1982 SC 879
Supreme Court held that directive principle of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right but since it is a constitutional goal it can be enforced through Article 32.
106. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 228
Supreme Court held that in case of conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directives Principles, the Fundamental Rights would prevail.
107. Re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1957 SC 956
Supreme Court held that though directive principles cannot override fundamental rights, nevertheless, in determining the scope and ambit of fundamental rights the court may take into account directive principles and adopt a principle of harmonious construction.
108. Minerva Mills v. Union of India,AIR 1980 SC 1789
Supreme Court held that giving absolute primacy to the directive principles disturb the harmony of the Constitution which is the basic feature
109. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149
(Also known as 1st Judges Case or Judges Transfer case) the Supreme Court agreed with the opinion in Sankalchand’s case. This meant that executive had supremacy in appointment of
judges.
110. S.C. Advocates on Record Association v.Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441
(Also known as 2nd Judges Case) Supreme Court overruled the decision in SP Gupta’scase. The court held that in the matters of appointment of judges of Supreme Court and High Courts. The Chief Justice of India should have primacy.
111. Re Presidential reference, AIR 1999 SC 1
(Also known as 3rdJudge’s case) Supreme Court held that consultation process to be adopted by the Chief Justice of India requires consultation of plurality of judges.
112. Supreme Court Advocates-on-RecordAssociation v. Union of India,(2015) AIR SCW 5457
Supreme Court declared both the 99th Constitutional Amendment as well as the NJAC Act, 2014 as unconstitutional and void. Consequently, the collegium systembecame operative again.
113. DelhiJudicial Service Association v, State ofGujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406
Supreme Court held that under Article 129 the Supreme Court has power to punish a person for the contempt of it self as well as its subordinate courts.
114. Javed v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 3057
Supreme Court held that the Constitution gives autonomy to the Centre and the States within their respective fields. The legislation of one State cannot be held to be discriminatory
against its citizens simply because Parliament or State Legislatures of other States have not chosen to enact similarlaws.
115. R.D.Joshi v. Ajit Mills, AIR 1977 SC 2279
Supreme Court held that the entries in the list must be given wide meaning implying all ancillary and incidental powers.The court held that punitive measures for enforcingsocial legislation is ancillary measures.
116. AD.M., Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207
Supreme Court held that during the proclamation of emergency rights under Article 21 can also be suspended and no person shall have any locus standi for enforcement of such right. This case is also known as habeas corpus case.
117. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India,AIR 1980 SC 1789
Supreme Court held that there is no bar to judicial review of the validity of Proclamation of emergency. However, the court’s power is limited to examining whether the limitations
conferred by the Constitution have been observed or not. If the satisfaction of the president is absurd mala fide perverse then it would be liable to be challenged in the court of law.
118. S.R Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCCI
Supreme Court held that judicial review of Presidential proclamation is permissible if the allegations of mala fides have been levelled in the petition.The Court laid down the following guidelines
(1) Proclamation dissolving State Legislative Assembly is subject to judicial review;
(2) President’s rule cannot be imposed on the ground of political considerations;
3) Imposition of President’s rule and dissolution of State Assembly cannot be done together,
(4) State Assembly can only be dissolved after Parliament approves the proclamation.
(5) Existence of materials is a pre-condition to form the basis of satisfaction for imposition of President’s rule.
119. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India,AIR 1980 SC 1789
There is no bar to judicial review of the validity of aproclamation of emergency issued by the President under Article 352. The court’s power is limited only to examining whether the limitations conferred by the Constitution have been observed or not Where the satisfaction is absurd, perverse, mala fide or based on wholly irrelevant considerations, it would be no satisfaction at all and it would be liable to be challenged before a court of law.
120. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India,AIR 1951 SC 458
The Supreme Court held that power to amend the Constitution including the fundamental rights is contained in Article 368 and the sword law’ in Article 13(2) includes only an ordinary law made in exercise of the legislative power and does not include the constitutional amendment which is made in exercise of constituent power. Constitutional amendment will be valid even if it abridges or takes away any fundamental rights.
121. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan,AIR 1965 SC 845
Subsequently in Supreme Court approved the majority judgment in Shankari Prasad’s case and held the amendment of the Constitution means amendment of all parts of the Constitution.
122. Golaknath v. State of Punjab,AIR 1967 SC 1643
In Supreme Court prospectively overruled its earlier decisions in Shankari Prasad’s case and Sajjan Singh’s case. The court held that Parliament had no power, from the date of decision, to amend Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge Fundamental Rights.
123. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala AR 1973 SC 1461
The validity of the 24th Constitutional Amendment was challenged and Supreme Court held that Parliament can amendany Part of the Constitution but cannot amend basic structure of the constitution.
124. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) AIR 1980 SC 1784
Supreme Court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 on the ground that it destroys basic structure of the Constitution as limited amending power is the basic structure of the Constitution.
125. l.R Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861
Supreme Court held that any law placed in 9th schedule ofthe Constitution after April 24, 1974, would be open to challenge in the court of law on the ground that it destroys the basic structure of the Constitution.
