For video explanation - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpAYS6qtw9XEjUcnOGR3Wkw

1. • This case was regarding the Parliament’s power to transfer the territory of
Berubari to Pakistan.
• The SC examined Article 3 in detail and held that article 3 (c) give parliament
a power to diminish state territory but doesn't give power to cede.
• Mere exercising power under article 3 is not sufficient, Parliament has to bring
an amendment to the Constitution using power and procedure mentioned in
article 368
• Hence, the 9th Amendment Act was passed to enforce the agreement
In re Berubari Union
1960
‘CESSATION OF TERRITORY’

2. • A K Gopalan was a communist leader who was detained in the Madras Jail under
Preventive Detention Act, 1950 and challenged his detention by stating that
his civil liberty was being hampered as he had the right to equality of law
• The Supreme Court held that there was no violation of Fundamental Rights and
examined that he was detained according to the procedure established by law
• The SC took a narrow view of Article 21
A. K. Gopalan vs The State of Madras
1950
‘PREVENTIVE DETENTION ’

3. • A Naval Commander was being tried for committing the murder of his wife’s
paramour .
• It was held by the court that it was a premeditated murder and did not fall
within the the provision of Exception I of section 300 of IPC
• Nanavati was held guilty of murder.
• As a result of this case, the government abolished the jury trials in India.
KM Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra
1961
‘END OF JURY TRIAL ’

4. • The correctness of the decision in Sajjan Singh's case were raised
before a bench of eleven judges of the Supreme Court in this case
• SC held that Parliament had no power to amend any of the
provisions of Part III, so as to take away or abridge the fundamental
rights enshrined therein
I. C. Golaknath vs State of Punjab
1967
‘NO POWER TO AMEND FR’

5. • It is the most landmark case in the history of Indian Constitutional law decided
by the highest Constitution Bench of 13 Judges
• The issue was whether the Parliament can amend any part of the
Constitution.
• The Supreme Court held that the Parliament could amend any part of the
Constitution as long as it did not alter the basic structure or framework of the
Constitution.
• The SC held that basic structure would be decided from case to case.
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala
1973
‘BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE’

6. • Appeal filed by Indira Gandhi against the decision of the Allahabad HC that
invalidated her election on the ground of corrupt practices.
• Parliament passed the 39th Constitutional Amendment, which introduced and
added a new Article 392A to the Constitution stating that the election of the Prime
Minster and the Speaker cannot be challenged in any court in the country.
• It was struck down by the Court on the ground that it violated free and fair
elections which was an essential feature that formed the Basic Structure of the
Constitution
Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain
1975
‘FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS’

7. • The Supreme Court adopted the widest possible interpretation of the right to life and
personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The issue in this case was whether the Right to Go Abroad is a part of the Right to
Personal Liberty under Article 21
• The SC held that the expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is of widest amplitude
and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man
and some of them have raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given
additional protection under Article 19
• Gave fundamental character to the right in Article 21 by establishing a link between
Articles 14, 19 and 21
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India
1975
‘PERSONAL LIBERTY’

8. • When election of Indira Gandhi were termed to be illegal she lost majority on the
floor of the Parliament and declared Emergency on the ground of internal
disturbance.
• Many leaders of the opposition were detained overnight as they were proving to be a
political threat to Indira Gandhi
• A presidential order issued which declared that the right of any person to move
any court for any enforcement of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 21 and 22
would remain suspended during the Emergency. The SC upheld the order.
• But it is no more longer a law in view of 44th Amendment
ADM, Jabalpur vs. Shiv Kant Shukla
1976
‘HABEAS CORPUS CASE ’

9. • The validity of 42nd amendment Act was challenged on the ground that they are
destructive of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
• The 42nd amendment added clauses (4) and (5) of the article 368 providing that
Article 13 shall not apply to amendments and an amendment shall not be called in
question in any court
• The SC ruled that a limited amending power itself is a basic feature of the
Constitution.
• The judgement strengthened the basic structure doctrine and made it clear that the
Constitution is supreme
Minerva Mills vs Union of India
1980
‘LIMITED AMENDING POWER ’

10. • It drew a line of demarcation as April 24th, 1973 i.e., the date of the Kesavananda
Bharati judgement, and held that it should not be applied retrospectively to reopen
the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to that date
• The SC ruled that as far as the validity of the Ninth Schedule is concerned, the Acts
and regulations included in the Ninth Schedule prior to the date of Keshavananda
Bharati, will receive the full protection of this Article
• Thus, the 1st amendment of the constitution does not jeopardize any basic structure
of the constitution
Waman Rao vs Union of India
1980
‘NINTH SCHEDULE’

11. • Validity of capital punishment was in question
• SC held that neither Article 19 nor 21 is violated by capital punishment
• The fact that death sentence may be given in certain extreme crimes is proven
by the existence of provisions for appeal (Article 134) and Pardoning power of the
President (Article 72).
• The doctrine of “rarest of the rare cases” came into being that for ascertaining
the existence or absence of “special reasons” in a case, the Court must pay due
regard to both the criminal and the crime equally.
Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab
1980
‘RAREST OF THE RARE CASES ’

12. • Section 303 in the IPC provides for mandatory death sentence for a person
who commits murder while serving a life term in another case
• The Supreme Court struck down Section 303 as violative Articles 14 (right
to equality) and 21 (right to life) since an unreasonable distinction was
sought to be made between two classes of murderer’s.
• It said all murders would come under the ambit of Section 302, where a court
would have the discretion to award life term or death sentence
Mithu vs State of Punjab
1983
‘SECTION 303 UNCONSTITUTIONAL’

13. • As per the muslim law, a muslim women is entitled to maintenance during
the period of Iddat
• This is a landmark Judgment in securing the rights of muslim women on the
maintenance field.
• The court held that neglect by a person of sufficient means to not give
maintenance to any dependents leads to invoking of Section 125 CrPc.
• Even if there is a conflict, section 125 of CrPC is a secular law, and hence,
applies to all women, irrespective of their religion
Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum
1985
‘MAINTENANCE FOR MUSLIM WOMEN’

14. • The Union Government made a decision to reserve 27% Government jobs for
SEBCs under Article 16(4) of the Constitution
• The Court upheld the decision subject to the following restrictions:
 The creamy layer should be excluded
 Reservation should not exceed 50 percent
 Reservation can’t be made in promotions.
Indra Sawhney vs Union of India and Others
1992
‘RESERVE 27% GOVERNMENT JOBS FOR SEBCS ’

15. • Bommai government lost majority following defections and the Governor
refused to give him an opportunity to test his majority in the Assembly
• It was categorically ruled that the floor of the Assembly is the only forum to
test the majority of the government, and not the subjective opinion of the
Governor
• The court also held that ‘secularism’ is a basic feature of the Constitution and
politics and religion cannot be mixed. If any State Government acts against
that ideal can be dismissed by the President.
S. R. Bommai vs. Union of India
1994
‘USE OF ARTICLE 356 AND SECULARISM’

16. • The main issues before the court was whether Hindu husband, married under
Hindu law, embracing Islam is allowed to do a second marriage and also
whether the first marriage would be valid marriage.
• The court held the earlier marriage under Hindu Law is not dissolved by the
conversion and convicted the accused under Section 494 of IPC for bigamy.
• It was observed that personal laws of different religions come in conflict so an
appeal must be made to the government to have a re-look at Article 44 of
Constitution, that suggests Uniform civil code for the citizens
Sarla Mudgal & others vs Union of India
1995
‘CONVERSION’

17. • In Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., it was
held that right to establish educational institutions can neither be a trade or
business nor can it be a profession within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g). This
was overruled here .
• Empowered the state to fix quota for minority students taking into account
the type of Institution population and educational needs of minority. Minority
institution may have its own procedure and method of admission which must
be fair and transparent
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
2002
‘ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ’

18. • Neither the policy of reservation can be enforced by the State nor any quota or
percentage of admissions can be carved out to be appropriated by the State in a
minority or non-minority unaided educational institution.
• Institutions have a fundamental right to choose the students to be allowed
admissions and the procedure therefor subject to its being fair, transparent and non-
exploitative.
• Every institution is free to devise its own fee structure subject to the limitation that
there can be no profiteering
• In regulating minority educational institutions a balance has to be struck between the
objective of ensuring standard of excellence and preserving the right of minority
P. A. Inamdar vs State of Maharashtra
2005
‘FREEING UNAIDED INSTITUTIONS FROM THE STATE'S RESERVATION POLICIES’

19. • The validity of 77th, 81st and 82nd constitutional amendment was
challenged on the ground that these sought to alter basic structure of the
constitution.
• Court held that Clause (4A) of Art. 16 is an enabling provision. It applies
only to SCs and STs.
• The said clause is carved out of Art. 16(4) an thus Clause (4A) will be governed
by the two compelling reasons "backwardness” and “inadequacy of
representation” as mentioned in Art. 16(4) in matter of public employment.
M. Nagaraj v Union of India
2006
‘ARTICLE 16(4A) - AN ENABLING PROVISION ’

20. • The 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution is a list of acts and laws which
cannot be challenged in a court of law.
• The court held that if a law is included in the 9th Schedule of the Indian
Constitution, it can still be examined and confronted in court.
• The Waman Rao ruling ensured that acts and laws mentioned in the IX
schedule till 24 April 1973, shall not be changed or challenged, but any
attempt to amend or add more acts to that schedule will be subjected to
judicial review
I.R.Coelho (Dead) By Lrs vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors
2007
‘NINTH SCHEDULE ’

21. • 93rd Amendment – Added Article 15(5) – State can reserve seats for socially
and educationally backward classes, in private unaided institutions other
than those run by minorities
• The reservation of 27% seats for OBCs in specified State-aided Central
Universities under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in
Admission) Act, 2006 was in issue
• The Supreme Court upheld the 93rd Constitutional Amendment and The
Central Educational Institution (Reservation On Admission) Act 2006.
Ashok Kumar Thakur v UOI
2008
’93rd AMENDMENT’