Important Supreme Court Judgements of

Independent India

SL No
Case Judgement

1.
A.K. Gopalan vs The State Theme : Right to life
Of Madras (1950) SC contented that there was no violation of Fundamental
Rights enshrined in Articles 13, 19, 21 and 22 under the
provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, if the
detention was as per the procedure established by law.
Here, the SC took a narrow view of Article 21.
The majority opinion in the A.K. Gopalan case was that
article 21 covering procedure established by law would
simply mean the law established by the state.

2.
Romesh Thapar v State of Theme : Freedom of speech and expression
Madras (1950) • SC ruled that freedom of speech lay at the foundation
of all democratic organisations.
• The full court ruled that the imposition of pre-
censorship on a journal is a restriction on the liberty
of the press, which is an essential part of the right to
freedom of speech and expression under Article 19
(1)(a).
• It said the freedom of speech and expression is one of
the most valuable rights guaranteed to a citizen by
the Constitution and should be jealously guarded by
the courts. The verdict added that free political
discussion is essential for the proper functioning of a
democratic government.
• The rationale behind this judgement set a healthy
precedent both in terms of protecting press freedom
and defining the scope of reasonable restrictions on
the fundamental rights as provided in Part III of the
Constitution.

3.
Kedar Nath Singh vs State Theme : Sedition Law
Of Bihar (1962) • The Supreme Court of India upheld the
constitutional validity of the provisions of the Indian
Penal Code that penalized sedition.
• Kedar Nath Singh had been convicted for sedition
and inciting public mischief because of a speech in
which he criticized the government and advocated for
the Forward Communist Party.
 • The Court reasoned that the penalization of sedition
is a constitutionally valid restriction on the right to
freedom of expression only when the words are
intended to disturb public peace by violence.
• The Court emphasized that the phrase “Government
established by law” under section 124A must be
distinguished from criticism of a specific party or
persons.
• The purpose of the crime of sedition was to prevent
the Government established by law from being
subverted because “the continued existence of the
Government established by law is an essential
condition of the stability of the State”.

4.
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo Theme : Amendability of Fundamental Rights
v. Union of India (1951) This case dealt with the amendability of Fundamental
Rights (the First Amendment’s validity was challenged).
The SC contended that the Parliament’s power to amend
under Article 368 also includes the power to amend the
Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the
Constitution.
Further, it said that a constitutional amendment act
enacted to abridge or take away the fundamental rights is
not void of article 13(2).

5.
Berubari Union case (1960) Theme : Article 3 related
• Case was regarding the Parliament’s power to
transfer the territory of Berubari to Pakistan.
• The Supreme Court examined Article 3 in detail and
held that the Parliament cannot make laws under
this article in order to execute the Nehru-Noon
agreement. Hence, the 9th constitutional Amendment
Act was passed to enforce the agreement.

6. Theme: Right to Property - is it a Fundamental

Golaknath Vs State of
Punjab (1967) Right?
• Supreme Court ruled that Parliament doesn’t have
the power to restrict any of the Fundamental Rights
enshrined in the Constitution.
• Hence, State of Punjab couldn’t take away Golaknath
or any other citizen’s land as Right to Property was
deemed to be fundamental.
 • Beginning with its ruling in GOLAKNATH, the Court
developed jurisprudence around what was known as
the basic structure doctrine.
• According to this doctrine, the Court was in charge of
preventing the erosion of those enduring values that
constitute the essence of constitutionalism.

7.
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs Theme : Ordinance making power
Union Of India - 1970 • The ordinance making power of the president can be
questioned if his satisfaction can be questioned on
the grounds of malafide.
DC Wadhwa case 1987
• Court held that re promulgation of ordinances with
the same text, without giving any chance to house to
pass it, would amount to a violation of the
constitution and can be struck down.
Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar 2017
• SC ruled that ordinances are subject to judicial
review, and do not automatically create enduring
effects.

8.
Kesavananda Bharati vs Theme : Basic structure of the Constitution
State of Kerala case (1973) • Declared that Article 31C of the constitution which
was inserted by 24th Constitutional amendment to
give unrestricted powers to parliament in enacting a
law which is against judicial review.
• SC felt that judicial review is the basic structure of
the constitution and is amendable even under Article
368.
• It opened the floodgates for interpretation of what
constitutes the basic structure of the constitution
which is discussed over many cases.

9.
Maneka Gandhi vs UoI case Theme: Expansion of rights under Article 21
(1978) • The Court reiterated that the term ‘personal liberty’ is
of “the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of
rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a
man.”
 • And some of those rights have been raised to the
status of distinct fundamental rights and given
additional protection under Article 19.
• SC held that - ‘Procedure established by law’ is within
the meaning of Article 21 and must be ‘right and just
and fair’ and ‘not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive’
otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the
requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.
• Thus the ‘procedure established by law’ has acquired
the same significance in India as the ‘due process of
law’ clause in America.

10.
Minerva Mill vs Union of Theme: Basic Structure of the Constitution
India (1980) • The validity of 42nd amendment Act was challenged
on the ground that they are destructive of the ‘basic
structure’ of the Constitution
• SC said that a limited amending power itself is a
basic feature of the Constitution.
• SC ruled that Fundamental Rights and the Directive
Principles are required to be viewed as the two sides
of the same coin. Both should be complementary to
each other and there should be no confrontation
between them.
• Therefore, SC evolved the basic structure doctrine of
the Constitution of India and provided key
clarifications on the interpretation of the basic
structure doctrine.

11.
Bachan Singh v. State of Theme: Death Penalty
Punjab(1980) The Supreme Court, in Bachan Singh v. State of
Punjab 1980, had laid down that life imprisonment is the
rule and death sentence is an exception and thus, certain
guidelines should be followed before a court may award
death penalty:
• Only in the gravest cases of extreme culpability, this
extreme penalty of death may be awarded;
• The circumstances of the offender along with the
circumstances of the crime have to be taken into
consideration.
• When the sentence of life imprisonment seems
 inadequate having regard to the nature and
circumstances of the crime, only then death sentence
may be awarded; and
• The aggravating and the mitigating circumstances
have to be balanced.

12.
Machhi Singh And Others vs Theme: Death Penalty
State Of Punjab(1983) Supreme Court had held that in the rarest of rare cases,
when the collective conscience of the community is so
shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial
power centre to inflict death penalty, then death penalty
may be sanctioned.

13.
MA Khan vs Shah Bano Case Theme: Secularism and Uniform Civil Code
(1985) • Shah Bano filed a case in the Supreme court against
her husband asking him for a maintenance amount
for herself and her children after her triple talaq
divorce.
• Under the Islamic law she was eligible for only one
time maintenance of 5400
• The SC decided it in favour of Shah Bano using
secular criminal procedure code regardless of
religion.
• This was a step towards the implementation of
Uniform Civil Code.

14.
Indira Sawhney vs Union of Theme: Reservations
India case (1992 ) • Backward class of citizens in Article 16(4) can be
identified on the basis of the caste system & not only
on economic basis.
• Article 16(4) is not an exception of Article 16(1). It is
an instance of the classification. Reservation can be
made under article 16(1).
• Backward classes in Article 16(4) were not similar to
as socially & educationally backward in article 15(4).
• Creamy layer must be excluded from the backward
classes.
• Article 16(4) permits classification of backward
classes into backward & more backward classes.
• A backward class of citizens cannot be identified only
& exclusively with reference to economic criteria.
 • Reservation shall not exceed 50%.
• Reservation can be made by the ‘EXECUTIVE
ORDER’.
• No reservation in promotion.
• Permanent Statutory body to examine complaints of
over – inclusion / under – inclusion.
• Majority held that there is no need to express any
opinion on the correctness or adequacy of the
exercise done by the MANDAL COMMISSION.
• Disputes regarding new criteria can be raised only in
the Supreme Court.

15.
S R Bommai vs Union of Theme: Centre state Relations
India (1994) • Supreme Court issued the historic order, which in a
way put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State
governments under Article 356 by spelling out
restrictions.
• The verdict concluded that the power of the President
to dismiss a State government is not absolute.
• The verdict said the President should exercise the
power only after his proclamation (imposing his/her
rule) is approved by both Houses of Parliament.
• Till then, the Court said, the President can only
suspend the Legislative Assembly by suspending the
provisions of the Constitution relating to the
Legislative Assembly.

16.
Ramamurthy v. State of Theme : Prison Reforms
Karnataka(1996) • Supreme Court identified nine issues concerning
prisons, such as overcrowding, trials being delayed,
the torture and ill-treatment of prisoners, neglect of
health and hygiene, insubstantial food and
inadequate clothing.
• Directed government to bring uniformity nationally of
prison laws and prepare a draft model prison
manual.
Important Supreme Court Judgements
Important Supreme Court Judgements
Important Supreme Court Judgements
17.
Vishaka and Others vs State Theme: Women’s Issues
of Rajasthan (1997) • SC mentioned that its the duty of the employer and
other at work to prevent or deter possible acts of
sexual harassment
• Provided the Procedure for resolution, settlement or
prosecution
• Provided for a range of behaviour which can be
termed as sexual harassment
• Mandated to create Complaints committee
• SC gave details regarding constitution and working of
Complaints committee.
• The court decided that the consideration of
"International Conventions and norms are significant
for the purpose of interpretation of the guarantee of
gender equality, right to work with human dignity in
Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution
and the safeguards against sexual harassment
implicit therein.
• It resulted in what is popularly known as the Vishaka
Guidelines

18.
Dr. T.M.A Pai Foundation V. Theme : Minority institutions
State Of Karnataka (2002) The TMA Pai Foundation was a landmark 11-judge order
which laid down the contours of governmental
regulations on private institutions and still occupies the
education field in so far as the constitutionality of
statutes and regulations is concerned.
• The right under Article 30(1) is not absolute or above
the law”
• The essence of Article 30(1) was “to ensure equal
treatment between the majority and the minority
institutions” and that rules and regulations would
apply equally to majority and minority institutions.
• Maximum latitude must be given to management of
minority institutions that directly aim to preserve
their special religious and linguistic characteristics
but for those minority institutions imparting purely
secular education such as Physics, Chemistry, etc,
excellence is of paramount importance.
19.
Union of India v. Theme : Voter’s right to know
Association for Democratic • The Court in dealing with the issue at hand held that
Reforms (2002) under the Indian Constitution, electors had a
fundamental right to know the antecedents of
candidates contesting elections to hold public office.
• The court read in ‘right to be informed’ as a right
flowing from freedom of speech and expression. The
Election Commission was directed to secure affidavits
by candidates recording all particulars relating to
past or pending criminal charges or cases against
them.
• This included information as to whether the
candidate was convicted/acquitted/discharged of any
criminal offence in the past.
• Additionally, if convicted, the quantum of
punishment that was awarded; and whether prior to
six months of filing of nomination, the candidate was
accused of an offence punishable with minimum two
years of imprisonment.

20.
Lily Thomas case vs Union Theme: Disqualifications of representatives and
of India (2004) Decriminalisation of Politics
• SC nullified section 8(4) of RPA which did not
disqualify convicts who are convicted for more than 2
years if they appealed in 3 months.
• This gave an unfair advantage for representatives to
proceed as a member in spite of being convicted.
• SC court judgement ensured that any representative
who is convicted for more than 2 years stand
disqualified for the sentence term and till 6 years
after the completion of the sentence.

21.
M. Nagaraj vs Union of India Theme : Reservations
Case (2006) • SC validated parliament’s decision to extend
reservations for SCs and STs to include promotions
with three riders.
• It required the state to provide proof for the
backwardness of the class benefitting from the
reservation, for its inadequate representation in the
 position/service for which reservation in promotion is
to be granted and to show how reservations in
promotions would further administrative efficiency.

22.
Prakash Singh Vs Union of Theme : Police reforms
India (2007) • SC instructed central and state governments to
comply with a set of seven directives laying down
practical mechanisms to kick-start reform.
• The Supreme Court referred to the recommendations
made by several committees on police reforms and
culled four requisite points of reform:
(1) State Security Commission at State level;
(2) Transparent procedure for the appointment of
Police Chief and the desirability of giving him a
minimum fixed tenure.
(3) Separation of investigation work from law and
order.
(4) A new Police Act which should reflect the
democratic aspirations of the people.

23. I.R. Coelho vs State of Theme: Basic Structure Doctrine vs 9th Schedule
Tamil Nadu (2007) provisions
• The judgement in this case put an end to the politico-
legal controversy by holding the Parliament’s
amending power subject to Judicial Review in line
with Keshavananda Bharti’s case judgement that the
violation of Doctrine of Basic Structure will never be
tolerated.
• The judgment in I.R. Coelho vigorously reaffirms the
doctrine of basic structure.
• Indeed it has gone further and held that a
constitutional amendment which entails violation of
any fundamental rights which the Court regards as
forming part of the basic structure of the Constitution
then the same can be struck down depending upon
its impact and consequences.
• This 2007 judgement has already upheld authority of
judiciary to review any law including those that have
been placed under the 9th Schedule of the Indian
Constitution.
24.
The CPIO, Supreme Court of Theme : RTI and Supreme court
India v. Subhash Chandra • Chief Justice’s office is a “public authority” within the
Agarwal (2009) meaning of the Right to Information (RTI) Act as it
performs numerous administrative functions in
addition to its adjudicatory role. Access to
information it held was therefore regulated by the
Act.
• The Court emphasized that information pertaining to
submitted declarations and their contents constitutes
“information” within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of
the Act.
• The Court found that Section 8(1)(j) of the Act indeed
stipulated the exemption from disclosure of personal
information of a third party on the ground of privacy.
The exemption applied irrespective of whether a third
party was a private individual or a public official.

25.
SK Koushal v Naz Theme: Vulnerable sections - LGBT
foundation case 377 (2013) • It is a 2013 case in which a 2 judge Supreme Court
bench overturned the Delhi High Court case Naz
Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi which upheld
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code - which
criminalized consensual homosexual sex between
adults.
• The Supreme Court of India decided to revisit this
judgement after several curative petitions were filed
against it, in 2017.
• The Supreme Court today decriminalised consensual
adult sex saying sexual orientation is natural and
people have no control on it.
• But portions of Section 377 relating to sex with
minors, non-consensual sexual acts such as rape,
and bestiality remain in force.

26.
Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Theme: LGBT community
of India (2017) • In this landmark verdict, the Supreme Court
scrapped the controversial Section 377– a 158-year-
old colonial law on consensual gay sex.
• The Supreme Court reversed its own decision and
 said Section 377 is irrational and arbitrary.
• “LGBT Community has same rights as of any
ordinary citizen. Respect for individual choice is the
essence of liberty.
• LGBT community possesses equal rights under the
constitution. Criminalising gay sex is irrational and
indefensible.
• Therefore, The Supreme Court of India unanimously
held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, which criminalized 'carnal intercourse against
the order of nature', was unconstitutional in so far as
it criminalized consensual sexual conduct between
adults of the same sex.

27.
People’s Union of Civil Theme: NOTA- Right of citizens to cast negative vote
Liberties vs Union of India • Rule 49(O) of the conduct of Election Rules 1961
case (2013) ensures that the presiding officer records a voter has
not voted in case if he doesn't want to vote after he
has been inked on the finger and entered his name
on Form17-A. This is against the right to secrecy
enshrined in the elections.
• SC held that Right to vote also includes a right not to
vote and remain neutral.
• Right to secrecy is the integral part of free and fair
elections. People who didn't vote shouldn't be
victimized.

28.
Common Cause vs UoI Theme: Right to die with dignity & Article 21
(2013) aka Aruna Shanbaug • Supreme Court of India has held that right to die with
Case - Right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. The Bench also held
dignity = Fundamental that passive euthanasia and a living will also legally
Right valid.
• The Court has issued detailed guidelines in this
regard. “The right to life and liberty as envisaged
under Article 21 of the Constitution is meaningless
unless it encompasses within its sphere individual
dignity. With the passage of time, this Court has
expanded the spectrum of Article 21 to include within
it the right to live with dignity as component of right
to life and liberty”.
• The Bench also held that the right to live with dignity
 also includes the smoothing of the process of dying in
case of a terminally ill patient or a person in a
Persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

29.
National Legal Services Theme: Vulnerable Sections - Transgender
Authority vs Union of India • It is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of
(2014) India, which declared transgender people to be a
'third gender', affirmed that the fundamental rights
Transgender as ‘third guranted under the Constitution of India will be
gender’ equally applicable to transgender people.
• It also gave them the right to self-identification of
their gender as male, female or third-gender.
• Moreover, the court also held that because
transgender people were treated as socially and
economically backward classes, they will be granted
reservations in admissions to educational institutions
and jobs.
• This judgement is a major step towards gender
equality in India.

30.
Shatrughan Chauhan vs UOI Theme : Delay in execution of Death penalty
(2014) • The undue delay by President in rejecting mercy to a
death row convict amounts to torture.
• Such inordinate and unexplained delay by the
President is sufficient in itself to entitle the convict to
a commutation.
• The court had refused to fix a certain number of
years above which undue delay would amount to
torture.
• The crime in question is irrelevant while deciding the
effects of keeping a death row prisoner waiting for a
decision on his or her mercy petition.
• The suffering that comes with anticipating death on
an every day basis for the judges amounted to
torture, which was violative of the Right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution.

31.
Shreya Singhal vs UoI Theme: Freedom of Speech online
 (2015) Freedom of speech • The SC declared Section 66A of IT Act as
unconstitutional and struck it down.
• The court said such a law, which was often misused
by police in various states to arrest innocent persons
for posting critical comments about social and
political issues and leaders on social networking
sites, hit at the root of liberty and freedom of
expression, the two cardinal pillars of democracy.

32.
National Judicial Theme - Separation of Powers
Appointments Commission • NJAC was a proposed body which would have been
Case (2015) responsible for the appointment and transfer of
judges to the higher judiciary in India instead of the
current practice of the collegium system..
• On 16 October 2015, the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court by 4:1 Majority upheld the collegium
system and struck down the NJAC as
unconstitutional after hearing the petitions filed by
several persons and bodies with Supreme Court
Advocates on Record Association (SCAoRA) being the
first and lead petitioner.
• Justices J. S. Khehar, Madan Lokur, Kurian Joseph
and Adarsh Kumar Goel had declared the 99th
Amendment and NJAC Act unconstitutional while
Justice Chelameswar upheld it.

33.
Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors Theme : Reservations / PwDs
vs Union Of India & Ors In a landmark case argued by the Disability Law
(2016) Initiative, the Supreme Court on 30th June 2016 held as
illegal the Government of India instructions disallowing
reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities,
and said that wherever posts are identified to be suitable
for disabled persons, 3% reservation must be given in
direct recruitment as well as in promotion.

34.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy Theme: Privacy and Fundamental Rights
(Retd) vs UoI (2017) • The Judgement holds that the right to privacy is
protected as a fundamental constitutional right under
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
• Unanimously the court held that “the right to privacy
 is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and
personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the
freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution”.
• It explicitly overrules previous judgements of the
Supreme Court in Kharak Singh vs State of UP and
M.P Sharma vs Union of India, which had held that
there is no fundamental right to privacy under the
Indian Constitution.

35.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy Theme: Aadhar and Right to Privacy
(Retd) vs UoI (2017) • Supreme Court on September 26, 2018 ruled that
Aadhaar was constitutional but making it mandatory
for availing government services was
unconstitutional.
• So, while Aadhaar-PAN linking is mandatory, banks
and telecom companies cannot ask people to link
their bank accounts and mobile numbers with
Aadhaar. This is unconstitutional.
• The bench termed the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act (PMLA) Rules as well as the
notification issued by the Department of
Telecommunications (DoT) in this regard as
unconstitutional.
• It also means that banks and mobile phone
companies can't anymore insist on Aadhaar number
to verify your details when you seek a new connection
or open a new bank account.

36. Theme: Gender Equality vs Freedom of Religion

Triple Talaq ShayaraBano
Case (2017) • The Supreme Court declared, by a majority of 3:2
that divorce through instant triple talaq among
Muslims would be "void", "illegal" and
"unconstitutional". This judgment has the effect of
law.
• Three of the five judges in the panel concurred that
the practice of triple talaq is unconstitutional.
• The remaining two declared the practice to be
constitutional while simultaneously asking the
government to ban the practice by enacting a law.
37.
Ban on Diwali firecrackers Theme: Air Pollution/Environment
in Delhi (2017) • The SC banned the sale of fireworks days ahead of
Diwali on environmental grounds in view of severe
pollution.
• In 2018 October, Ruling out a blanket ban on
firecrackers in Delhi-National Capital Region, the
Supreme Court has permitted the sale of ‘green
crackers’

38.
Sabu Mathew George vs Theme : Internet freedom / Freedom of expression
Union Of India (2017) online
• Supreme Court ordered the respondents, Google,
Microsoft and Yahoo to ‘auto-block’ advertisements
relating to sex selective determination.
• They also ordered the creation of a ‘nodal agency’ that
would provide search engines with the details of
websites to block.

39.
Extra Judicial Execution Theme : Operation of AFSPA and Human rights
Victim vs Union Of India • Every death caused by the armed forces in a
And Ors (2018) disturbed area, whether the victim is a dreaded
criminal or a militant or a terrorist or an insurgent,
should be thoroughly enquired into
• The verdict tears down the cloak of secrecy about
unaccounted deaths involving security forces in
disturbed areas and serves as a judicial precedent to
uphold civilian and human rights in sensitive areas
under military control.
• The judgment came on a plea by hundreds of families
in the north-eastern State of Manipur for a probe by
a Special Investigation Team into 1,528 cases of
alleged fake encounters involving the Army and the
police.
• Dealing a blow to the immunity enjoyed by security
personnel under the Armed Forces (Special Powers)
Act of 1958 (AFSPA) against criminal action for acts
committed in disturbed areas, the apex court held
that “there is no concept of absolute immunity from
trial by a criminal court” if an Army man has
committed an offence.
40.
Tehseen S. Poonawalla V Theme : Cow Vigantalism
Union Of India (2018) • Preventive Measures: State Governments should
appoint nodal officers, directions are given for their
functioning, police should disperse mobs under S.129
of CrPc, initiate FIRs under S.153A of IPC, Central
and State governments should stop spread of
information and broadcast the serious consequences
of law for lynching and mob violence.
• Remedial Measures: In case of any incidents, FIRs
should be filed, and the Nodal officer informed,
effective processing through fast track courts, victim
compensation scheme and free legal aid.
• Punitive Measures: Departmental action should be
taken against officers who do not comply with the
above measures as it will be seen as a case of
misconduct or negligence and the action to be taken
should reach a conclusion within six months.
The Court, gave a recommendation to the Parliament to
constitute a separate offence for lynching with adequate
punishment.

41.
Indian Young Lawyers Theme: Freedom of religion vs Gender equality.
Association vs State of • On September 28, a five-judge Constitution bench,
Kerala (2018) headed by the then CJI Dipak Misra, in a 4:1 verdict
had paved the way for entry of women of all ages into
the shrine, saying the ban amounted to gender
Women can now enter discrimination.
Sabarimala • The court ruled that - We have no hesitation in
saying that such an exclusionary practice violates the
right of women to visit and enter a temple to freely
practice Hindu religion and to exhibit her devotion
towards Lord Ayyappa. The denial of this right to
women significantly denudes them of their right to
worship.
• Court observed that the custom of barring women
was in violation of Article 25 (Clause 1) and Rule 3(b)
of Kerala Hindu Places of Worship.
• Dissenting view: Justice Indu Malhotra said that
every individual should be allowed to practice their
faith irrespective of whether the practice is rational or
logical.
42.
Adultery 2018 SC Theme: Adultery is not a crime
Judgement - Joseph Shine • The Supreme Court unanimously struck down a 150-
Vs Union of India year-old law that considered adultery to be an offence
committed against a married man by another man.
Defined under Section 497 of the IPC, adultery law
came under sharp criticism for treating women as
possessions rather than human beings.
• The Supreme Court declared Section 497 as
unconstitutional. Adultery is no longer a crime but if
it leads to someone committing suicide, the act will
be treated as a crime - abetment to suicide.
• And while, Adultery is no longer a crime, but it will
continue to be grounds for divorce.

43.
Judicial Proceedings - Theme: Transparency in Judicial Proceedings
Swapnil Tripathi vs SC - • Sunlight is the best disinfectant," said the Supreme
2018 Court bench and ordered live-streaming and video
recording of the court proceedings yesterday,
September 26, 2018.
• Supreme Court said live streaming of court
proceedings will bring transparency.
• The Supreme Court said that live streaming would
bring in more transparency in judicial proceedings
and effectuate the "public right to know".

44.
SC/ST Reservation case Theme: SC/ST Reservation
2018 - Jarnail Singh vs LN • As the Supreme Court has upheld reservation in
Gupta promotion for SC/ST communities, the court’s
position on the idea of a creamy layer has put the
political class in a dilemma
• So far creamy layer is applicable only for OBCs
seeking reservation. Last year, the creamy layer
ceiling for OBC reservation was raised to Rs 8 lakh
per year − families with income above this were not
eligible
• How will a creamy layer apply to SC/STs is
uncharted territory. While the government says it is
still “examining” the judgment, SC/ST groups are
restive in a poll year that has seen caste protests
nationwide.
 Power tussle between Delhi Theme: Federalism
45.
Government and Lt. • In this landmark verdict that came as a shot in the
Governor - Govt of NCT of arm for the Arvind Kejriwal-led AAP government in its
Delhi vs UoI - 2018 tussle with Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal for
control of Delhi, a five-judge Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the elected
government of Delhi do not require the concurrence
of the Lt Governor who only needs to be informed.
• Calling for Constitutional pragmatism and
underlining the clear separation of powers, the bench
made it clear that “the status of the Lieutenant
Governor of Delhi is not that of a Governor of a State,
rather he remains an Administrator, in a limited
sense, working with the designation of Lieutenant
Governor”.

46.
Verdict on Rohingya Crisis - Theme: Deportation vs Refugee Rights
Md. Salimullah vs UoI • The Supreme Court Thursday rejected the plea to
(2018) stop the deportation of seven Rohingya immigrants to
Myanmar from Assam.
• The bench rejected the plea saying that the seven
were found as illegal immigrants by the court earlier
and that Myanmar is also ready to accept them as
their nationals. “We are not inclined to interfere on
the decision taken,” the apex court said.
• The plea filed by two Rohingya immigrants challenged
the Centre’s decision to deport over 40,000 refugees
who came to India after escaping from Myanmar due
to widespread discrimination and violence against the
community.
• The fresh plea said that the decision to deport was in
“grave violation” of India’s international obligation
and moreover, the situation in Myanmar was
extremely dangerous for the Rohingyas to return and
they are likely to be subjected to torture and even
killed.
47.
Supreme Court’s Order on Theme: Environment vs Tribal Rights
Forest Rights Act (2018) • The February 13, 2019 order of the Supreme Court to
several States to evict lakhs of claimants finally
rejected under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) is an
outcome of the consistent stand taken by the top
court in the case since 2016 that encroachers should
be evicted from forest land after due process.
• On January 29, 2016, a three-judge Bench of
Justices J. Chelameswar (now retired), A.M. Sapre
and Amitava Roy (retired) held that “if the claim is
found to be not tenable by the competent authority,
the result would be that the claimant is not entitled
for the grant of any patta or any other right under the
Act, but such a claimant is also either required to be
evicted from that parcel of land or some other action
is to be taken in accordance with law.”
• The Supreme Court on March 1st, 2019, suspended
the implementation of its controversial February 13,
2019, order directing states to evict around 2 million
forest-dwellers from forests after the tribal affairs
ministry pointed out that the process of settling their
claims and rights left a lot to be desired.

48.
SC/ST Act 1989 - SC Theme: Protection for Vulnerable Sections
Judgement (2018) • In 2018, the Supreme Court had diluted the law’s
provisions and had said public servants cannot be
arrested immediately after a complaint is filed against
them under the law.
• It also allowed for anticipatory bail which wasn’t the
case in the SC/ST Act 1989.
• However, the Parliament passed an amendment bill
in August 2018 to reverse the verdict.

49.
Public Interest Foundation Theme : Criminalisation of Politics
v. Union of India (2018) • SC directed political parties to publish the criminal
details of their candidates in their respective websites
and print as well as electronic media for public
awareness.
 • The published information on the criminal
antecedents of a candidate should be detailed and
include the nature of their offences, charges framed
against him, the court concerned, case number, etc.
• A political party should explain to the public through
their published material how the “qualifications or
achievements or merit” of a candidate, charged with a
crime, impressed it enough to cast aside the smear of
his criminal background.
• A party would have to give reasons to the voter that it
was not the candidate’s “mere winnability at the
polls” which guided its decision to give him ticket to
contest elections.

50.
Association for Democratic Theme : Electoral bonds
Reforms v. Union of India The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and Deepak
(2019) Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has directed all the
political parties who have received donations through
Electoral Bonds to submit,
• detailed particulars of the donors as against each
Bond;
• the amount of each such bond and the full
particulars of the credit received against each bond,
namely, the particulars of the bank account to which
the amount has been credited and the date of each
such credit. to the Election Commission of India in
sealed cover

51.
BhimaKoregaon Arrest Theme: Dissent vs Law and Order
verdict - RomilaThapar vs • A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court refused to
UoI (2019) interfere in the arrests of five rights activists in the
Bhima-Koregaon violence case in a 2:1 verdict.
• The activists — poet VaraVara Rao, lawyer Sudha
Bhardwaj, activists Arun Ferreira, Vernon Gonsalves
and GautamNavlakha — were arrested by
Maharashtra Police in cross-country raids in
connection with the Bhima-Koregaon violence probe.
• The Supreme Court, however, extended the house
arrest of the activists. Justice Chandrachud
dissented with the majority verdict.
52.
Anuradha Bhasin vs Union Theme : Fundamental right
of India (2020) • In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday
said that access to the Internet is a fundamental right
under Article 19 of the Constitution, and asked the
( Also in Faheema Shirin vs
Jammu and Kashmir administration to review within
State of Kerala , had same a week all orders imposing curbs in the Union
judgement) Territory.
• Section 144 CrPC (prohibitory orders) cannot be used
indefinitely to suppress freedom of speech and
expression and difference of opinion.
• The bench said access to Internet is a fundamental
right under Article 19 of the Constitution, subject to
some restrictions and said freedom of press is a
valuable and sacred right. It said magistrates, while
passing prohibitory orders, should apply their mind
and follow doctrine of proportionality.

53.
National Federation Of Theme : Gram Nayalayas
Societies For Fast Justice & • The Supreme Court has directed all the states to
Anr. Vs. Union of India come out with notifications for establishing ‘Gram
(2020) Nyayalayas’ within a month and has asked the High
Courts to expedite process of consultation with state
governments on this issue.
• The bench in January 2020, noted that certain states
including Haryana, Gujarat, Uttarakhand,
WestBengal, Telangana, Odisha and Chhattisgarh
have not yet filed their affidavits on the issue despite
the court’s direction last year.

54. Theme : Reservations

Punjab v. Davinder Singh
(2020) • A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held
that States can sub-classify Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in the Central List to provide
preferential treatment to the “weakest out of the
weak”.
• Sub-classifications within the Presidential/Central
List does not amount to “tinkering” with it. No caste
is excluded from the list. The States only give
preference to weakest of the lot in a pragmatic
manner based on statistical data.
• It fully endorses the push to extend the creamy layer
concept to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes.
 • The judgment records that “Citizens cannot be
treated to be socially and educationally backward till
perpetuity; those who have come up must be
excluded like the creamy layer”.

55.
The Secretary, Ministry of Theme : Women Empowerment
Defence Vs Babita Puniya The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment on 17
(2020) February, granted permanent commission to women
officers in the Army irrespective of their number of years
of service. The women officer-litigants had been fighting
the case for 14 years.

THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005

56. A two-judge Bench headed by Justice A K Goel held that

Prakash v Phulwati (2015)
the benefit of the 2005 amendment could be granted only
to “living daughters of living coparceners” as on
September 9, 2005 (the date when the amendment came
into force).
Note : In February 2018, contrary to the 2015 ruling, a
two-judge Bench headed by Justice A K Sikri held that
the share of a father who died in 2001 will also pass to
his daughters as coparceners during the partition of the
property as per the 2005 law.
Then in April that year, yet another two-judge bench,
headed by Justice R K Agrawal, reiterated the position
taken in 2015.
These conflicting views by Benches of equal strength led
to a reference to a three-judge Bench in 2020.

57. • A three-judge Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra

Batch of appeals against the
ruled that a Hindu woman’s right to be a joint heir to
2015 verdict ( 2020)
the ancestral property is by birth and does not
depend on whether her father was alive or not when
3 judge bench headed by the law was enacted in 2005.
Justice Arun Mishra • The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 gave
Hindu women the right to be coparceners or joint
legal heirs in the same way a male heir does. “Since
the coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that
the father coparcener should be living as on
9.9.2005,” the ruling said.