TOP 10 LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION

TOP 10 LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION 

I.C. Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anrs. (1967) 

The main issue in this case was whether Parliament had the authority to amend fundamental  rights, specifically by taking away or abridging those rights. In a majority judgment (by a 6:5 majority), the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament did not possess the power to amend any aspect  of the fundamental rights provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution. The court determined  that Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 did not extend to altering the basic structure  or the substantive content of fundamental rights, considering Part III to be the essence and soul of  the Constitution and beyond the reach of such amending power. This landmark decision had  significant implications, limiting Parliament’s authority to amend fundamental rights.  

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 

At the heart of this case lay the fundamental question surrounding the extent of Parliament’s  authority to amend the Constitution, with a particular focus on whether any constraints existed on  that power. In this case, the Supreme Court held by a slim majority of 7:6 that the power of  Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was subject to basic structure limitations. 

Indeed, the Supreme Court overturned the verdict in the Golaknath case through its ruling in this case. The court established that Parliament does possess the authority to amend the Constitution;  however, this power is not absolute and is bound by the restrictions outlined in the “Basic Structure  Doctrine.” 

Vishakha and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 

The central concern in this case revolved around the lack of legal frameworks and guidelines to  effectively tackle and prevent instances of sexual harassment faced by women in the workplace. In this case, the Supreme Court held that sexual harassment at the workplace violates a woman’s  fundamental rights under Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of  the Constitution. Recognizing the urgency of addressing this issue, the court referred to  international conventions, including CEDAW, and guidelines from other countries to formulate  the “Vishaka Guidelines.” These guidelines serve as an interim framework until legislation is  enacted to address and prevent sexual harassment in workplaces. 

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 

This case centered on the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing the  right to life and personal liberty. The key question was whether this right encompasses the right to  a fair procedure when a person’s passport is impounded. Specifically, the challenge was raised  against the government’s impounding of Maneka Gandhi’s passport without providing her with a 

chance to be heard. The landmark judgment expanded Article 21’s scope, recognizing personal  liberty as more than physical restraint absence. It encompassed the right to travel abroad and be  heard before affecting personal liberties. The court deemed the government’s action as a violation  of natural justice and due process, stressing fair procedures are vital. The ruling established that  personal liberty can only be restricted through just and reasonable procedures, highlighting the  importance of procedural safeguards and natural justice principles. 

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 

This case dealt with eviction of pavement dwellers and their right to livelihood under Article 21  of the Indian Constitution. It questioned whether evicting them without offering alternative  accommodation violated their fundamental rights. The case involved pavement dwellers facing  eviction without alternative arrangements. The court ruled this violated their constitutional rights  and principles of social justice.The judgment emphasized that economic reasons or urban planning  alone cannot deprive the right to life and livelihood. The state must act justly and fairly, providing  alternative arrangements. The court directed the government to formulate a comprehensive policy  for rehabilitating and providing amenities to the affected pavement dwellers.This ruling was  crucial in acknowledging the right to livelihood as integral to Article 21 and highlighted the state’s  duty to protect the socio-economic rights of vulnerable sections. 

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004) 

The case addressed the legality of encounter killings and extrajudicial killings by the police. It  raised concerns about the constitutionality of incidents where alleged criminals are killed without  due process. In this landmark judgment, India’s Supreme Court addressed encounter killings,  emphasizing the right to life and police accountability. It set strict guidelines, permitting  encounters only in self-defense or to protect officers and bystanders. Independent agencies must  investigate every encounter to ensure transparency. The court’s guidelines have set standards for  investigating and prosecuting encounter cases, prioritizing the rights of alleged criminals and  innocent citizens. 

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) 

In focus was the case challenging the ban on women aged 10 to 50 from entering Kerala’s  Sabarimala Temple. The specific issue was whether this prohibition violated women’s  fundamental rights, such as equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of religion, as enshrined in  the Indian Constitution. In this historic ruling, India’s Supreme Court overturned the ban on  women of menstrual age entering the Sabarimala Temple. The court cited the violation of  fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination. It emphasized that gender cannot be a  basis for denying the right to worship and affirmed women’s constitutional rights. The case set a 

precedent for challenging gender discrimination in religious practices, promoting gender justice  and equal rights. 

Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT (2009) 

In this legal challenge, the focus was on Section 377, a longstanding law within the Indian Penal  Code that criminalized consensual homosexual acts among adults. The key issue was whether this  law undermined the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, specifically pertaining to  equality, privacy, and freedom of expression. The Delhi High Court decriminalized consensual  adult homosexual relationships by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. It  recognized LGBTQ+ individuals’ rights to privacy, dignity, and equality, emphasizing that sexual  orientation is an inherent part of identity. Criminalizing homosexuality perpetuated discrimination  and stigma, and the court stressed the importance of inclusivity and non-discrimination for societal  progress. 

Shah Bano v. Mohammed Ahmed Khan (1985)  

The case centered around the issue of maintenance for divorced Muslim women. The specific issue  was whether divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance beyond the period of iddat (a  waiting period after divorce), under the Muslim personal law or under the general provisions of  the Indian law. The Supreme Court ruled that divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance  beyond iddat under Section 125 of the CrPC. It ruled that the right to maintenance for divorced  Muslim women is not subject to personal laws alone and can be enforced under the general  provisions of the CrPC, which guarantee maintenance to women of all religions, including Muslim  women. However, the government later passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on  Divorce) Act, limiting maintenance to the iddat period. The case sparked debates on women’s  rights and the balance between personal laws and constitutional principles. 

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)  

The issue of freedom of speech and expression on the internet was addressed in this case. The  specific issue was the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which  provided for the punishment of individuals for posting offensive or false content online. The  Supreme Court in this judgement struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as  unconstitutional. The court cited its vagueness and overreach, which posed a threat to freedom of  speech and expression online. The ruling highlighted the importance of protecting free speech on  the internet and set guidelines to prevent misuse of online speech provisions. The case’s impact 

was significant, safeguarding digital freedom of expression and setting a precedent for clear and  limited restrictions on speech rights. 

Manuscript by, Bhagwat Mahajan, Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla, an intern under legal vidhiya.