Law, Judiciary & Legal Awareness Module

Landmark Supreme Court Judgments & Doctrines

The Supreme Court of India has shaped constitutional democracy through transformative judicial rulings and structural doctrines. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), a 13-judge bench established the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 cannot destroy essential features of the Constitution. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the apex court expanded Article 21's right to life, mandating that procedures depriving personal liberty must be 'just, fair, and reasonable' rather than merely prescribed by statute. Other milestone verdicts include Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) for workplace sexual harassment guidelines, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) affirming the fundamental right to privacy, and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) decriminalizing Section 377.

Practice Topic MCQs All Category Topics

Key Concepts & Examination Highlights

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) established the Basic Structure doctrine by an 7-6 majority verdict of a 13-judge Constitution bench.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) ruled that procedure under Article 21 must satisfy the tests of reasonableness, fairness, and justice.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) unanimously affirmed the Right to Privacy as an intrinsic part of Article 21 and Part III.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) laid down binding workplace sexual harassment guidelines prior to the enactment of the POSH Act, 2013.
In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court originally took a narrow interpretation of Article 21, which was subsequently overruled in Maneka Gandhi (1978).
In Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), an 11-judge bench ruled that Parliament could not curtail or take away any of the Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendments.
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court laid down binding guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women at workplaces until statutory legislation was enacted.
In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), known as the Mandal Case, the court upheld 27% reservation for OBCs while capping total reservations at 50% and introducing the creamy layer concept.
In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), a 5-judge constitutional bench declared the practice of instantaneous triple talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat) unconstitutional and void by a 3-2 majority.
In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC (Adultery) as unconstitutional, citing violations of Articles 14 and 21.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), also known as the Oleum Gas Leak case, the Supreme Court evolved the doctrine of 'Absolute Liability' for hazardous industries.
In the A.K. Gopalan case (1950), the Supreme Court adopted a narrow interpretation of Article 21, holding that 'procedure established by law' did not include natural justice or due process.
In the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case (1976), known as the Habeas Corpus case, the majority ruled that Fundamental Rights could not be enforced during an Emergency, with Justice H.R. Khanna delivering a legendary lone dissent.
In the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) Oleum Gas Leak case, the Supreme Court evolved the Doctrine of Absolute Liability, holding hazardous enterprises strictly accountable without exceptions.
In the Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum case (1996), the Supreme Court integrated the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle into environmental jurisprudence under Article 21.
In the Mohini Jain (1992) and Unni Krishnan (1993) cases, the Supreme Court recognized the Right to Education as an integral component of the Right to Life under Article 21.
In the Shayara Bano v. Union of India case (2017), a 5-judge Constitution Bench declared the practice of Talaq-e-Biddat (instant triple talaq) unconstitutional by a 3:2 majority.
In the Indian Young Lawyers Association case (2018), the Supreme Court allowed women of all age groups to enter the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, upholding gender equality under Article 25.
In the Common Cause v. Union of India case (2018), the Supreme Court recognized the legal validity of passive euthanasia and the execution of advance medical directives (living wills).
In the Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India case (2022), a 5-judge bench upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment providing 10 percent reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
In the Supriyo v. Union of India case (2023), the Supreme Court declined to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act, leaving the matter to Parliament.
In the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. Union of India case (2024), a unanimous 5-judge Constitution Bench struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme as violative of Article 19(1)(a).
The Doctrine of Pith and Substance is applied by Indian courts to determine whether a legislature has encroached upon the legislative domain of another legislature under Article 246.
The Doctrine of Severability (Article 13) provides that if an unconstitutional provision of a statute can be separated from valid provisions, only the invalid provision is declared void.
The Doctrine of Eclipse provides that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not dead from inception, but remain dormant (eclipsed) until constitutional amendments remove the conflict.
The Doctrine of Basic Structure was laid down in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), holding that Parliament cannot alter the basic features of the Constitution under Article 368.
In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), the Supreme Court initially held that constitutional amendments under Article 368 are not 'laws' under Article 13.
In I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), an 11-judge bench overruled earlier precedents, ruling that Parliament could not abridge Fundamental Rights through constitutional amendments.
In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court applied the Basic Structure Doctrine to strike down Article 329A(4) inserted by the 39th Amendment, affirming free and fair elections and rule of law.
In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court struck down Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 inserted by the 42nd Amendment, holding judicial review to be a basic feature.
In Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court held that the Basic Structure Doctrine applies prospectively to all constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973.
The Doctrine of Severability (Article 13) was articulated in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) and R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla (1957), holding only unconstitutional portions of a law void if severable.
The Doctrine of Eclipse, established in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955), holds that pre-constitutional laws violating Fundamental Rights remain dormant/eclipsed rather than dead.
The Doctrine of Pith and Substance, applied in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951), determines the true nature and character of a legislation when it incidental encroaches upon another legislative list.
The Doctrine of Colorable Legislation, summarized by the maxim 'what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly', was affirmed in Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar (1952).
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court formulated mandatory guidelines against sexual harassment of women at workplaces, later codified in the POSH Act, 2013.
In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Supreme Court specified 11 mandatory guidelines to prevent custodial violence and safeguard the rights of arrested persons.
In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), a 5-judge Constitution Bench held the practice of Talaq-e-Biddat (instant triple talaq) unconstitutional, void, and violative of Article 14.
In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC (Adultery) as unconstitutional for treating women as proprietary chattel and violating Article 14 and 21.
In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21, permitting passive euthanasia and living wills.
In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), a unanimous 9-judge bench recognized the Right to Privacy as an intrinsic part of Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed by Part III.
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (1993), the Second Judges Case established judicial primacy in appointments and gave birth to the Collegium system.
In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), the Supreme Court lifted the ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the Sabarimala temple, citing gender equality and Article 25.
In Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. Union of India (2024), a 5-judge bench unanimously struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme as unconstitutional and violative of Article 19(1)(a).
The Doctrine of Territorial Nexus holds that state laws can operate extra-territorially only if there is a real and sufficient connection between the state and the subject matter (Tata Iron & Steel Co., 1958).
The Doctrine of Laches bars a claimant from receiving equitable or writ relief if there has been unreasonable, unexplained delay and negligence in asserting the right.
In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the Supreme Court formulated the 'Rarest of Rare Cases' doctrine governing the imposition of capital punishment in India.
In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, causing immediate disqualification of convicted legislators.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court established the 'Golden Triangle' doctrine, linking Articles 14, 19, and 21 into an integrated guarantee of personal liberty.

Curriculum & Reference Sources: Supreme Court Reports (SCR), Ministry of Law and Justice, Bar Council of India Legal Education Compendium

Sample Solved Questions & Concept Explanations

8 Verified Concept Questions

Q1.MEDIUM

In which landmark 1973 constitutional judgment did the Supreme Court of India formulate the 'Basic Structure Doctrine', ruling that Parliament cannot alter the essential framework of the Constitution?

Q2.EASY

In which landmark 1997 judgment did the Supreme Court lay down binding guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women at workplaces?

Q3.EASY

In which landmark 2018 judgment did the Supreme Court of India unanimously strike down Section 377 of the IPC to decriminalize consensual same-sex relations between adults?

Q4.EASY

In which landmark 2017 judgment did a unanimous nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court declare the 'Right to Privacy' as an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21?

Q5.EASY

In which landmark 2017 case did the Supreme Court declare the practice of instant divorce (Talaq-e-Biddat / Triple Talaq) unconstitutional and void?

Q6.EASY

Which landmark 1978 judgment broadened the scope of Article 21 by ruling that 'procedure established by law' must be just, fair, and reasonable?

Q7.EASY

In which landmark 1997 case did the Supreme Court lay down 11 mandatory guidelines to be followed by police personnel during the arrest and detention of any person?

Q8.MEDIUM

In which landmark 1980 judgment did the Supreme Court strike down Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment to uphold the harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as Basic Structure?