Case Law Notes · Indian Constitution Landmark Judgments (Case Law)

Indian Constitution Landmark Judgments (Case Law)

41 min read

Download Constitution Important Case Laws PDF

Download Constitution One Liner Notes PDF

Download Constitution Detailed Notes + Test Series

Download Constitution ALL MCQs + One Liner Notes

Also Explore:

Constitution One Liner Notes

Constitution Detailed Notes

Constitution Video Lecture Playlist

Constitution Bare Act

There are 5 Sets of MCQs available for Constitution of India , you are advised to explore all the sets :

Constitution MCQs Set -1

Constitution MCQs Set -2

Constitution MCQs Set -3

Constitution MCQs Set -4

Constitution MCQs Set -5

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS ON CONSTITUTION

FEATURES OF CONSTITUTION
CASE NAME	HELD
1. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India 2023	The court stressed that the "golden principle of fraternity," enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, serves as a constant reminder to maintain harmony among different sections of society.
2. Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549	This is a landmark 1955 Supreme Court of India decision that clarified the extent of executive power in India and the nature of the doctrine of separation of powers in the Indian Constitution. The fundamental principle is that the President serves as the Constitutional Head of the executive, while the actual executive powers are vested in the Council of Ministers.
3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918	The Supreme Court established secularism as a fundamental component of the Constitution's basic structure, asserting that the state must remain neutral toward all religions and cannot discriminate on religious grounds.
4. Excel Wear v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 25	The Supreme Court of India examined the balance between India's socialist principles and the protection of private property rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that while socialism might favor nationalization and state control, it cannot be interpreted to completely disregard the interests of private owners.
5. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125	The Supreme Court of India declared that the power of judicial review of the High Courts and the Supreme Court is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be excluded. The decision established a system of judicial oversight for administrative tribunals to ensure their accountability and protect the rights of citizens.
6. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918	The majority opinion held that the Indian Constitution is federal and that federalism is part of its "basic structure," which cannot be altered even by a constitutional amendment.
7. Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549	The Supreme Court of India examined the scope of executive power and held that while the Constitution is federal in structure, it is ultimately based on the British parliamentary system.
8. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361	Although the Indian Union is federal in nature, the degree of federalism is significantly tempered by the imperative of national progress and development. The coordination of national, political, economic, social, intellectual, and spiritual aspects overrides strict federal considerations.

PREAMBLE
9. In Re Berubari Union case, AIR 1960 SC 845	The Supreme Court of India ruled that the Preamble is not considered a part of the Constitution, and thus could not be a source of substantive power.
10. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461	The Supreme Court ruled that while the Preamble is a part of the Constitution and can be amended under Article 368, it cannot be amended in a way that would alter its "basic structure".

UNION & TERRITORY
11. In Re Berubari’s case, AIR 1960 SC 858	The Supreme Court of India held that Parliament cannot cede Indian territory to a foreign state under Article 3 of the Constitution, as this provision only deals with altering internal state boundaries.

CITIZENSHIP
12. Sondur Gopal v. Sondur Rajini, AIR 2013 SC 2678	The Supreme Court ruled that in matters of domicile of choice, simply acquiring another domicile is insufficient. There must be a clear intention to abandon the domicile of origin.
13. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 1811	The Supreme Court of India ruled that a company, being a juristic person rather than a natural person, is not a "citizen" under the Indian Constitution. Consequently, corporations cannot claim fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and assembly under Article 19, which are explicitly reserved for citizens.
14. Tata Engineering v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 40	The Supreme Court held that a company, being a separate legal entity and not a "citizen" under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, cannot claim fundamental rights through its shareholders.
15. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, (Bank Nationalisation case) AIR 1970 SC 564	The Supreme Court held that while registered companies are not citizens and cannot claim Article 19 rights directly, shareholders are entitled to protection under Article 19 if a government action, by infringing the company's rights, also infringes the shareholders' proprietary interests.

DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE, SEVERABILITY, JUDICIAL REVIEW
16. Keshav Madhav Menon v. State of Bombay, AIR 1951 SC 128	The Supreme Court of India held that pre-Constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are not rendered void ab initio (from the beginning) by Article 13(1) of the Constitution. The court ruled that such laws operate prospectively and remain valid for actions and transactions that occurred before the Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950.
17. Bhikaji v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 781	This case introduced the doctrine of eclipse, stating that pre-Constitutional laws are overshadowed by fundamental rights and remain dormant.
18. State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills, AIR 1974 SC 1300	The Supreme Court clarified that post-constitutional laws violating fundamental rights are not void ab initio for all purposes, but only to the extent of the inconsistency, and are subject to the doctrine of eclipse.
19. R.M.D.C. v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628	The Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine of severability, establishing that if an invalid part of a law can be removed, and the remaining valid part still forms a complete and operative law, then the whole Act does not need to be declared void.
20. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124	The Supreme Court of India established a crucial legal principle: If a law allows restrictions on fundamental rights that are both permissible and impermissible under the Constitution, and these restrictions cannot be separated, then the entire law must be struck down as unconstitutional. This is known as the "severability doctrine" in constitutional law.
21. Kihota Hollohan v. Zachillhu, AIR 1993 SC 412	The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of the anti-defection law (the Tenth Schedule) while striking down Paragraph 7, which ousts judicial review.
22. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125	The Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226, which allows for the scrutiny of administrative action and legislative validity, is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be eliminated by any statutory amendment.

CONCEPT OF STATE
23. Pushan Majumdar v. Union of India, 2023	Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS) answers to the description of “the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, for it being financially, functionally and administratively under the control of the Government of India.
24. University of Madras v. Shanta Bai, AIR 1954 Mad. 67	The Madras High Court applied the principle of ejusdem generis, stating that the term "other authorities" under Article 12 of the Constitution was limited to bodies exercising governmental or sovereign functions, not including universities unless state-maintained.
25. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohan Lal And Others, AIR 1967 SC	The Supreme Court of India expanded the definition of "other authorities" under Article 12 of the Constitution, holding that any authority created by the Constitution or a statute, regardless of whether it performs governmental functions, falls under the purview of "the State".
26. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628	The Supreme Court laid down criteria to determine whether a body is an agency or instrumentality of the State, including State funding, State control, governmental function, transfer of government departments, and monopoly status.
27. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487	The Supreme Court held that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1898, can be considered an agency or instrumentality of the State, and thus falls under the definition of 'State' in Article 12. The court emphasised the purpose for which the entity was established.
28. Naresh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1	The Supreme Court held that while the judiciary is not a "State" under Article 12 in its judicial capacity, even if it were, a writ petition under Article 32 cannot be used to challenge the judicial orders of a High Court, as such orders do not inherently violate fundamental rights.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
29. Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP (2023)-	A mere statement made by a minister inconsistent with the rights of a citizen of Part III of the Constitution may not constitute a violation of constitutional rights and become actionable as a constitutional tort. The decision addressed the balance between a public functionary's freedom of speech and a citizen's fundamental rights to life and dignity under the Constitution's Part III.
30. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr RR Kishore (2023)	The Supreme Court held that a law declared unconstitutional is void ab initio, meaning it is inoperative from its inception. The Court's decision involved the retrospective invalidity of Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, which required prior government approval for certain CBI investigations.
31. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978)1 SCC 248	The Supreme Court affirmed that fundamental rights are essential to human dignity and the development of one's personality. The ruling was a transformative moment in Indian constitutional law, expanding the meaning of personal liberty under Article 21 and establishing the "golden triangle" of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
32. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71	The apex court, in its deliberations, affirmed the entrenched position of fundamental rights within the constitutional framework, endowing them with robust protection. It elucidated that individuals inherently possess certain basic human rights, transcending constitutional provisions, solely by virtue of their humanity.
33. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637	The Supreme Court of India established that indefinite internet shutdowns are unconstitutional. The court emphasized that any government measure restricting fundamental rights must be justified and proportional to the situation.
34. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1	The Supreme Court of India established the doctrine of proportionality as a crucial tool for judicial review of state actions that restrict fundamental rights. The court held that while fundamental rights, such as privacy, are not absolute and can be restricted, the restrictions must be justified and proportionate to a legitimate state aim.
35. Christian Medical College, Vellore Association v. Union of India, (2020) 8 SCC 705	The Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) as a uniform admissions examination for all medical and dental institutions, including minority-run colleges. In its decision, the court established key factors for examining the reasonableness of a statutory provision or regulation, particularly concerning the rights of minority educational institutions.
36. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75	The Supreme Court of India held that the West Bengal Special Courts Act was unconstitutional for violating Article 14, which guarantees "equality before the law" and "equal protection of the laws". The Supreme Court, in its verdict, elucidated that the concept of 'equal protection of laws' is intrinsically linked to the notion of 'equality before law'.
37. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan, AIR 1975 SC 2299	Asserting the sacrosanct nature of the Rule of Law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court underscored its status as a basic tenet of the constitutional framework, impervious to amendment.
38. R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 2138	The Supreme Court clarified that while Article 14 prohibits arbitrary or discriminatory laws, it permits reasonable classification if the classification has an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the objective of the law.
39. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555	The Supreme Court established that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution embodies a dual principle of equality, expanding the traditional concept of reasonable classification to also include a principle of equality that is fundamentally anti-arbitrariness, meaning that state actions must be fair, rational, and free from any non-rational basis.
40. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorarairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226	The Supreme Court of India struck down a Madras government order reserving college seats based on caste, religion, and race, as it violated fundamental rights to equality under Articles 15(1) and 29(2).
41. Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC1	The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of the 93rd Constitutional Amendment, which provided for reservations in state-funded and state-aided educational institutions, but ruled that these benefits must not extend to the "creamy layer" among Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
42. Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649	The Supreme Court ruled that while caste could be a relevant factor in determining social and educational backwardness, it could not be the sole or dominant criterion and factors such as poverty and occupation are equally pertinent. However, if an entire caste is deemed socially and educationally backward, it may be included in the list of backward classes.
43. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 355	The Supreme Court decreed that the state lacked the authority to enforce reservations of seats in admissions within privately operated educational institutions and higher educational establishments.
44. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477	The case, also known as the Mandal Commission case, arose after the V.P. Singh government in 1990 implemented the Mandal Commission's recommendation for a 27% reservation for OBCs in central government jobs. The Supreme Court upheld the concept of reservation for backward classes, stating that identification should consider social and educational factors alongside caste, not just economics. Key rulings include a 50% cap on total reservations, the exclusion of the "creamy layer", and a prohibition on reservations in promotions. The judgment also distinguished backward classes under Article 16(4) from those under Article 15(4) and allowed for classifying backward classes as "backward and more backward".
45. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71	The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B), which permit reservations in promotions and the carry-forward of unfilled vacancies respectively.
46. B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 129	The Supreme Court held that the concept of the 'creamy layer' does not apply to consequential seniority for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in promotions.
47. Telangana Judges Association v. Union of India, (2019) 18 SCC 769	The imposition of nativity requirements for public employment contravenes the fundamental right enshrined in Article 16(2), unless mandated by parliamentary legislation. Absent such legislation, residence cannot be imposed as an eligibility criterion for public employment.
48. People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473	Popularly known as the Asiad Project Worker's case, the Supreme Court affirmed that the right under Article 17 extends to actions by private individuals as well.
49. Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 770	The Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of national civilian awards like the Bharat Ratna and Padma awards. While rejecting the petitions that argued these awards violated Article 18 of the Constitution, the court clarified that the awards were honors recognizing merit, not hereditary "titles" that create a class-based hierarchy.
50. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124	The Supreme Court of India declared a government ban on the magazine Cross Roads unconstitutional, establishing a strong precedent for the protection of free speech and press in India.
51. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641	The Supreme Court of India affirmed that freedom of the press means immunity from government interference that would hinder its content and circulation, establishing this freedom as fundamental under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
52. Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106	The Supreme Court of India ruled that a government policy limiting the number of pages for newspapers was an unconstitutional violation of the freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution's Article 19(1)(a).
53. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632	The Supreme Court held that the government and its officials cannot impose prior restraint on publication of material that may be defamatory or infringe on privacy. The Court affirmed that any remedy for such claims, like defamation or invasion of privacy, can only be sought after the publication has occurred, not before.
54. Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1989 SC 1988	The Supreme Court of India held that while hawkers have a fundamental right to trade on public pavements under Article 19(1)(g), this right is not absolute and can be restricted by the state under Article 19(6) to ensure public convenience and prevent disruption to pedestrians and civic life.
55. Om Prakash v. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 1896	The Supreme Court affirmed the ban on the sale of eggs and other non-vegetarian items in the holy town of Rishikesh, including the municipal limits of Haridwar and Muni ki Reti, finding the restriction reasonable due to the cultural, religious, and pilgrim-centric nature of the area.
56. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324	The Supreme Court of India reinforced the right to peaceful protest as a fundamental right derived from Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. While affirming its significance in a democracy, the Court also held that this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.
57. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Qureshi Kasab Jamat, AIR 2006 SC 212	The Supreme Court upheld the ban on the slaughter of cows, calves, and other milch and draught cattle, ruling that it does not contravene Article 19(1)(g).
58. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637	The freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to practice any profession or carry on any trade or business over the internet, are protected under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The court emphasized that any restrictions on these rights must be proportionate, necessary, and temporary.
59. Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 10 SCC 459	The Supreme Court emphasized the vital distinction between a "grave emergency" threatening state security and less serious disruptions of "public order". This was a key part of the court's reasoning for striking down Gujarat government notifications that exempted factories from several labor protections during the COVID-19 pandemic.
60. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300	The Indian Supreme Court established that Article 20(3) of the Constitution protects against "compelled self-incrimination" and outlined three key elements to this right. 1. The individual must be accused of an offence. 2. This provision safeguards against compulsion to act as a witness. 3. Protection is extended against compulsion to provide evidence against oneself.
61. R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821	The Supreme Court clarified that an individual is considered accused when a formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been made, potentially leading to prosecution and conviction.
62. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu, AIR 1961 SC 1808	The Supreme Court of India clarified and narrowed the interpretation of "to be a witness" under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, distinguishing between testimonial and material evidence.
63. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, AIR 1977 SC 1025	The Supreme Court of India affirmed the protection provided by Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution against self-incrimination, ruling that this safeguard applies from the very stage of police interrogation onwards.
64. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974	The Supreme Court of India held that compelling an individual to undergo neuroscientific tests, such as polygraphs or narcoanalysis, without their consent violates their right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
65. A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 27	The Supreme Court took a restrictive view of personal liberty, interpreting it as freedom solely from physical restraint. The court also differentiated the phrase "procedure established by law" in Article 21 from the American concept of "due process of law," holding that a law made by the state was valid as long as the prescribed procedure was followed, regardless of its fairness.
66. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597	The Indian Supreme Court expanded the concept of personal liberty under Article 21, establishing that it encompasses a wide range of rights and that any procedure affecting this liberty must be "just, fair, and reasonable".
67. Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746	The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution by holding that the "right to life" includes the right to live with human dignity. The ruling affirmed that a person cannot be deprived of this right except by a reasonable, fair, and just procedure established by law.
68. Justice KS. Puttaswamy (Rtd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 4161	The Supreme Court of India declared the Right to Privacy a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, overturning previous decisions that denied its fundamental nature. The landmark judgment affirmed that privacy is essential for human dignity, autonomy, and the ability to make personal choices, encompassing various aspects of an individual's life and mind.
69. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39	The Supreme Court of India struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, decriminalizing adultery by finding it unconstitutional and a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that Section 497 was discriminatory, paternalistic, and treated women as property, infringing on their dignity, privacy, and autonomy.
70. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 345	The Supreme Court of India decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which previously criminalized these acts. The court found the law unconstitutional, violating fundamental rights to equality, dignity, privacy, and freedom of expression for LGBTQ+ individuals.
71. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180	The Supreme Court established that the right to livelihood is an inseparable component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
72. Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549	The Supreme Court of India held that the right to shelter is an integral and fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The decision expanded the scope of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, by including shelter as an essential component for living a life of human dignity.
73. Suchitra Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, AIR 2010 SC 235	The Supreme Court of India established that a woman's right to make reproductive choices is a dimension of "personal liberty" guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court ruled that this right includes the decision to bear a child or not and must be respected, even for persons with mental disabilities.
74. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039	This was a landmark public interest litigation (PIL) case that established the right to emergency medical care as an inherent part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
75. Ramlila Maidan v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1	The Supreme Court of India held that the right to sleep is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty, which the court interpreted to include the right to sleep peacefully.
76. Jolly George Varghese v. State Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470	Addressing the arrest and detention of an honest judgement debtor without willful failure to pay despite adequate means, the Supreme Court held such actions as violative of Article 21.
77. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648	The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, ruling that the right to life does not include the right to die.
78. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, MR 2011 SC 1290	The Supreme Court of India held that passive euthanasia could be permissible under specific conditions, particularly for patients in a permanent vegetative state.
79. National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1863	The Supreme Court of India recognized the right of transgender persons to self-determine their gender identity as a fundamental right integral to personal liberty and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
80. M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548	The Supreme Court of India affirmed that the right to free legal aid is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, establishing that the State has a duty to provide legal assistance to those unable to afford it.
81. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360	The Supreme Court declared the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right implicit in Article 21, emphasizing that prolonged detention of under-trial prisoners without trial violates this right.
82. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579	The Supreme Court did not hold that housing undertrials with convicts violates Article 21, but rather condemned the practice and called for separation. Justice Krishna Iyer stated that separating undertrials from convicts is a "constitutional compulsion" to prevent the "contamination" of the innocent, which is a violation of the fairness and reasonableness guaranteed by Article 21 and Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.
83. Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535	The Supreme Court in Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration (1980) held that handcuffing under-trial prisoners is inhumane and an infringement of the fundamental rights mentioned in Article 14, Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
84. Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 625	The Supreme Court of India ruled that the use of "third-degree" methods by police and other law enforcement personnel is a grave violation of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
85. Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 40	The Supreme Court prohibited smoking in public places to protect non-smokers from the health risks of passive smoking. Recognizing smoking as a major public health hazard, the Court directed the government to implement bans in various public spaces, including hospitals, educational institutions, and public conveyances, to safeguard the health of the general public.
86. Attorney-General of India v. Lachma Devi, AIR 1986 SC 467	The Supreme Court of India ruled that public hanging is a barbaric and inhumane punishment that violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life with dignity.
87. Deena v. Union of India, (1983) 4 SCC 645	The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of death by hanging, ruling that it does not inherently violate the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
88. D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., AIR 1997 SC 610	The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to be adhered to by investigating agencies during the arrest and detention of individuals, aimed at safeguarding their rights and dignity.
89. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260	The Supreme Court of India issued guidelines to curb arbitrary arrests, holding that a person should not be arrested merely based on an allegation or suspicion of an offense; rather, there must be a reasonable belief in the person's complicity and the necessity of the arrest, often achieved after some investigation.
90. Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141	The Supreme Court of India established the principle of awarding monetary compensation for the infringement of a person's fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
91. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666	The Supreme Court of India declared that the right to education is a fundamental right derived from the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that education is essential for human dignity and the fulfillment of one's potential.
92. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar Case), (2019) 1 SCC 1	Privacy ensures that a human being can lead a life of dignity by securing the inner recesses of the human personality from unwanted intrusions. Right to privacy as a fundamental right is not limited to Article 21. It resonates through the entirety of Part III of the Constitution. Privacy is also recognized as a natural right which inheres in individuals and is thus, inalienable.
93. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2019) 17 SCC 490	It is an established principle of law that the right to life, as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to a decent environment. The right to live in an environment free from smoke and pollution follows from the quality of life which is an inherent part of Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to live with human dignity becomes illusory in absence of a healthy environment.
94. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1943	The Supreme Court of India affirmed that engaging in construction work is a "hazardous employment". The Court, therefore, ruled that employing children under the age of 14 in the construction industry constitutes a violation of Article 24 of the Constitution of India.
95. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 699	The Supreme Court of India prohibited children under 14 from working in hazardous occupations, mandating the creation of a "Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund" funded by employers and the government.
96. Aruna Roy v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 3176	The Supreme Court upheld the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE), which included provisions for the study of religions. The court affirmed that studying religions in schools does not violate the constitutional principle of secularism, distinguishing between "religious instruction"—the teaching of dogma—and "religious education" or "study of religions," which is a legitimate academic pursuit.
97. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360	The Supreme Court held that offering of prayer or worship is a religious practice but offering at every location where such prayers can be offered would not be an essential religious practice.
98. S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1	The Supreme Court of India held that for a group to be considered a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Constitution, it must satisfy three requirements- 1. It must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs which they regard as conducive to their spiritual wellbeing. 2. It must have a common organization. 3. It must be designated by a distinctive name.
99. Indian Young lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Temple Case), (2019) 11 SCC 1	In the Sabarimala Temple case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala), the Supreme Court held that the right to freedom of religion is not absolute and must be balanced with other fundamental rights and constitutional morality.
100. TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481	This is a landmark Indian Supreme Court judgment that interpreted the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
101. In Re The Kerala Education Bill, 1957, AIR 1958 SC 956	This is a landmark Supreme Court of India ruling that balanced the constitutional rights of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions with the state's power to regulate those institutions.
102. St. Stephen ’s College vs. University of Delhi, (1992)1 SCC 558	This case addressed the scope of the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution, especially in relation to state-mandated regulations.
103. Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr., (1974) 1SCC717	In the field of administration it is not reasonable to claim that minority institutions will have complete autonomy. Checks on the administration may be necessary in order to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound and will serve the academic needs of the institution.
104. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124	the Supreme Court established itself as the protector of fundamental rights, stating that it cannot refuse to hear applications seeking protection against their infringement, even if the applicant approaches the Supreme Court directly without first going to a High Court with concurrent jurisdiction.
105. Daryao v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1457	The Supreme Court ruled that the principle of res judicata applies to petitions filed under Article 32, barring a party from seeking the same relief in the Supreme Court if a similar petition under Article 226 was previously dismissed by the High Court on its merits.
106. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, AIR 2002 SC 1771	The Supreme Court of India devised the concept of a "curative petition" as the final legal remedy available to a person aggrieved by a decision of the Supreme Court. A curative petition is an extraordinary measure used to correct a gross miscarriage of justice after a review petition has been dismissed.
107. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344	The Supreme Court of India, through a concurring opinion, highlighted the necessity of taking a broader view of locus standi (the right to initiate legal proceedings) in appropriate cases to reflect changes in social awareness of legal rights and obligations.
108. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149	This case is known as the First Judges' Case, the Supreme Court of India broadened the traditional rule of locus standi and paved the way for Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The decision established that any member of the public or a social group, acting in good faith, can petition the Supreme Court or a High Court to seek justice for those who are unable to approach the court themselves due to poverty, social, or economic disabilities.
109. L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125	The Supreme Court ruled that the judicial review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 is an inviolable part of the Constitution's basic structure.
110. BINU TAMTA & ANR. v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS, 2023	The Supreme Court of India affirmed that a constitutional court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature or rule-making body to enact a law or rule in a specific manner. The Court reiterated that such an order would infringe upon the separation of powers, as the legislature is responsible for creating laws.

DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES
111. Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879	The Supreme Court has held that the principle of “Equal pay for equal work though not a fundamental right” is certainly a constitutional goal and, therefore, capable of enforcement through constitutional remedies under Article 32 of the Constitution.
112. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 228	The Supreme Court of India ruled that Fundamental Rights would prevail over Directive Principles in the event of a conflict, establishing the supremacy of Part III of the Constitution over Part IV. The judgment declared that the Directive Principles must conform to and be subservient to the Fundamental Rights.
113. Re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1957 SC 956	The 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.
114. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461	The Supreme Court held that fundamental rights and directive principles aim at the same goal of bringing about a social revolution and establishment of a welfare state and they can be interpreted and applied together.
115. Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789	The Supreme Court held that the Indian Constitution is founded on a delicate balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. The Court ruled that giving absolute primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights, as attempted by the 42nd Amendment, would disturb this harmony, which is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be altered by Parliament. Therefore, amendments that destroy this balance are unconstitutional.

EXECUTIVE
116. U.N. Rao v. Indira Gandhi, AIR 1971 SC 1002	The Supreme Court of India held that Article 74(1) of the Constitution is mandatory and the President cannot exercise executive power without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The court ruled that even after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, the Council of Ministers does not cease to hold office.
117. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192	The Supreme Court of India ruled that whenever the Constitution requires the "satisfaction" of the President or Governor, it is not their personal satisfaction that is required. Instead, it is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers, which acts as the real executive authority and aids and advises the President or Governor.
118. B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 331	The court held that while a Governor holds office during the "pleasure of the President," this power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner.
119. Kehar Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 653	The Supreme Court held that the power to grant a pardon is a constitutional power vested in the President as an act of grace and cannot be demanded as a right.
120. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC1	The Supreme Court ruled that an inordinate and unexplained delay in the disposal of a mercy petition for a death row convict is a dehumanizing experience that amounts to torture. The Court held that this delay constitutes a "supervening circumstance" and is a sufficient ground for the judiciary to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.

LEGISLATURE
121. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 378	The Supreme Court ruled that the continuous re-promulgation of ordinances by the Bihar government without presenting them to the legislature constituted a "fraud on the Constitution". The Court found this practice to be a "subversion of the democratic process" and a "colourable exercise of power," holding that ordinances, an extraordinary power for temporary urgency, cannot be used as a substitute for the legislative power of the state legislature.
122. S.P. Anand v. H.D. Deve Gowda, AIR 1997 SC 272	The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional provision that a person who is not a member of either House of Parliament can be appointed as Prime Minister or a Union Minister for six months.
123. R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675	The Supreme Court held that the President's power to promulgate ordinances can only be exercised when Parliament is not in session, and the purpose is to address an emergency requiring immediate action.
124. In Re Keshav Singh, AIR 1965 SC 745	The Supreme Court held that in a conflict between Article 194 (parliamentary privileges) and fundamental rights, a rule of harmonious construction should be applied, wherein both provisions are read together to give effect to both.
125. Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 2119	The Supreme Court of India disqualified Rajya Sabha member Jaya Bachchan from Parliament for holding an "office of profit". An ‘office of profit’ is an office which is capable of yielding a profit or a pecuniary gain. Nature of payment must be considered as a matter of substance rather than form. The mere use of the word ‘honorarium’ will not take the payment out of the purview of profit.

JUDICIARY
126. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149	This case is known as (the First Judges Case), the Supreme Court held that the executive held primary authority in the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary, interpreting the "consultation" with the judiciary as a non-binding requirement rather than a need for concurrence.
127. S.C. Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441	The Supreme Court overruled the First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India) and established the Collegium System for appointing judges to the higher judiciary. The Court held that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) has primacy in recommending judicial appointments, meaning the CJI's opinion is binding on the executive, provided it's formed after consultation with other senior judges.
128. In re Presidential reference, AIR 1999 SC 1	This is also known as the Third Judges Case, the Supreme Court of India, in response to a Presidential reference by then-President K.R. Narayanan, clarified that the term "consultation" in Articles 217(1) and 222(1) of the Constitution concerning the appointment and transfer of judges requires consultation with a majority of the Supreme Court's judges and not just the Chief Justice of India (CJI) alone.
129. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, (2015) AIR SCW 5457	The Supreme Court of India declared the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, unconstitutional. This landmark decision reaffirmed the primacy of the judiciary in appointing judges and led to the reinstatement of the collegium system.
130. Bengal Immunity v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 661	The Supreme Court of India established that the doctrine of stare decisis is not binding on the Supreme Court itself, and the Court can depart from its previous decisions if they are found to be erroneous. The expression "all courts within the territory of India" was interpreted to exclude the Supreme Court from this requirement, allowing it the judicial dynamism to overrule its prior judgments.
131. State of Jharkhand v. Surendra Kumar Srivastava, (2019) 4 SCC 214	The Supreme Court of India reiterated that judicial orders passed by civil courts cannot be challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. A writ of certiorari under Article 226 is not an appropriate remedy against such orders.
132. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, AIR 2002 SC 1771	The Supreme Court of India introduced the concept of a "curative petition" to address gross miscarriages of justice, even after a final judgment. This extraordinary remedy allows the Supreme Court to reconsider its own final judgments or orders, which cannot be challenged under Article 32, when there has been a manifest injustice or fundamental flaw.
133. M. Siddiq v. Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1	This case is also known as the Ayodhya case, the Supreme Court of India held that the principles of "justice, equity and good conscience" are a constitutional tool to ensure a just outcome, finding expression in Article 142 of the Constitution.
134. State v. Kalyan Singh, (2017) 7 SCC 444	The Supreme Court clarified that Article 142 grants broad powers to ensure "complete justice," but this power is not absolute; it does not permit the Court to disregard mandatory, substantive provisions of law, despite giving equity precedence over law in its exercise.

LEGISLATIVE RELATIONS
135. State of Bombay v. R.M.D.C., AIR 1957 SC 699	The Supreme Court established the doctrine of territorial nexus, holding that an extraterritorial law is valid only if there is a real and substantial connection between the subject matter of the legislation and the legislating state, and this connection must be real and not illusory.
136. Javed v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 3057	The Supreme Court affirmed that the state's autonomy to enact legislation within its jurisdiction, such as the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act of 1994, is not undermined by other states or the Parliament not adopting similar laws.
137. Prafulla Kumar v. Bank of Commerce, Khulna, AIR 1947 PC 60	The Privy Council applied the doctrine of pith and substance to resolve a legislative conflict by determining the "true nature and character" of an Act. The court ruled that some legislative overlap between Union and State powers is inevitable in a federal system, and if an Act's pith and substance falls within a legislature's competence, incidental encroachment on another list does not invalidate the entire Act.
138. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318	The court held the Bombay Prohibition Act, as valid because the pith and substance of the Act fell in State List even though it incidentally encroached upon the Union List.
139. K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 375	The Supreme Court of India clarified the doctrine of colourable legislation by holding that it is not about the motive (bona fides or mala fides) of the legislature but about its competence to make a law.

FREEDOM OF TRADE AND COMMERCE
140. Atiabari Tea Co. v. State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC 232	This is a landmark judgment that examined the scope of the "freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse" guaranteed by Article 301 of the Indian Constitution. The case centered on the constitutional validity of a tax levied by the State of Assam on the transport of goods, including tea, by road and inland waterways.
141. State of Bombay v. R.M.D.C, AIR 1957 SC 699	The Supreme Court held that the freedom of trade and commerce guaranteed under Article 301 of the Indian Constitution applies only to lawful activities and does not extend to gambling, which is a res extra commercium (a transaction outside commerce).
142. Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 1406	The Supreme Court held that compensatory taxes, imposed for the use of trade facilities, are distinct from regulatory taxes that impede trade and are thus not restricted by Article 301 of the Indian Constitution.

EMERGENCY
143. A.D.M.,Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207	This case is also known as the Habeas Corpus case, where the Supreme Court, in a controversial 4:1 majority, ruled that individuals could not approach courts for habeas corpus relief during a national emergency, effectively suspending Article 21's right to personal liberty.
144. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789	The Supreme Court affirmed that the validity of a proclamation of emergency is subject to judicial review, though such review is limited to ensuring the President's actions adhere to constitutional limitations.
145. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC1	The Supreme Court's decision in the landmark case significantly re-evaluated the use and misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution, which deals with the imposition of President's Rule in states.
146. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789	The Supreme Court ruled there is no bar to the judicial review of an emergency proclamation under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution, with the court's power limited to checking for the observance of constitutional limitations. The court held that a declaration of emergency is challengeable in court if it is made without satisfaction, or if it is absurd, perverse, mala fide, or based on irrelevant considerations.

AMENDMENT
147. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458	The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament has the power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368 because the term "law" in Article 13(2) refers only to ordinary legislation, not constitutional amendments.
148. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845	The Supreme Court, in a 3:2 majority, upheld the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights. This decision reaffirmed the majority ruling in the earlier case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951).
149. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643	The Supreme Court established a significant precedent by declaring that Parliament could not amend Part III of the Constitution, which contains Fundamental Rights, effectively limiting Parliament's power to curtail these rights from the date of the decision onwards. This ruling effectively overruled previous decisions in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh cases, which had held that Parliament had the authority to amend even Fundamental Rights.
150. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461	This is a landmark Supreme Court decision that established the "basic structure" doctrine. The ruling upheld Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but limited that power by stating it cannot be used to destroy or alter the Constitution's essential features.
151. Minerva Mills v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1784	The Supreme Court of India struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 of the Constitution, holding that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and is limited by the basic structure doctrine.
152. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861	The Supreme Court ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, can be challenged in court if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The court's decision reaffirmed judicial review as a fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution, placing a limit on Parliament's power to grant blanket immunity to legislation.
153. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023	The Supreme Court of India held that the President can abrogate Article 370 without the Constituent Assembly's recommendation, interpreting the clause's aim as facilitating full integration, not freezing it.

Download Constitution Important Case Laws PDF