IMPORTANT Judgements - Watermark

https://t.
me/UPSC_TEST_2024
AVAILABLE COURSES AT SUNYA IAS
GENERAL STUDIES (GS)

PRELIMS COURSES
Sunya Notes - Current Affairs - 40 pages per month [The Hindu + PIB + Other monthly]
Prelims Static Revision Notes - Entire syllabus in 100 pages - Multiple sources
Prelims PYQ Content - Highly researched PYQ Content [from both Questions & Options]
Prelims Crash Course - Entire syllabus in 150+ hrs [Static + Current]
CSAT Foundation Course - from Basic to Advance [NO FORMULAE]
MAINS COURSES
MAINS CRASH COURSE - Entire syllabus in 200 hrs
ESSAY Enrichment Module - Highly Practical [Lectures + Notes + Content + Topper copies elements]
MAINS GS BOOKS [One Paper = One Book] - Both Static & Current
MAINS PYQ Solved - Last 8 year [Exam Oriented solved papers]
Mains Current Affairs 2024 - BiMonthly PDFs [Highly exam relevant & to the point articles]
Mains Content Boosters: Data, Reports, Examples, Case studies, Best Practices etc
MAINS 2023 Current Affairs Course
DISHA - Art of Answer Writing
MAINS TEST SERIES: 20 Tests or 35 Tests
Daily Answer Writing(DAW): One Question Daily
INTEGRATED PRELIMS AND MAINS COURSES

BRAHMASTRA 2024: Integrated Prelims Cum Mains Test series + Study Material + Mentorship
GS FOUNDATION 2024: “REAL” Foundation Course: We ensure 100% syllabus coverage as per exam demand.
[This would be highly oriented towards bringing you on a right track]
AARAMBH 2024: NCERT Bridge Course: Get your basics right!
OPTIONALS
SOCIOLOGY AGRICULTURE GEOGRAPHY
• SOCIOLOGY FOUNDATION (Online & Offline) • AGRI FOUNDATION (Online & Offline) • GEOGRAPHY FOUNDATION (Online)
• SOCIOLOGY CURRENT AFFAIRS • AGRI NOTES (Paper 1 & 2) • GEOGRAPHY NOTES (Paper 1 & 2)
• SOCIOLOGY NOTES (Paper 1 & 2) • GEOGRAPHY PYQ (Last 8 year solved
• SOCIOLOGY PYQ
• SOCIOLOGY DAILY ANSWER WRITING ANTHROPOLOGY
• SOCIOLOGY TEST SERIES
• ANTHRO FOUNDATION (Online & Offline)
PSIR • ANTHRO Enrichment Course
(CRASH COURSE)
• PSIR FOUNDATION (Online & Offline) • ANTHRO NOTES (Paper 1 & 2)
• PSIR Enrichment Course (CRASH COURSE) • ANTHRO PYQ (Last 8 year solved)
• PSIR NOTES (Paper 1 & 2) • ANTHRO TEST SERIES
• PSIR PYQ (Last 8 year solved)
• PSIR DAILY ANSWER WRITING
• PSIR TEST SERIES https://t.me/UPSC_TEST_2024
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS
Preamble
• In Re Berubari Union: The Court held that while Preamble showed the general purpose of
Constitution, it was not a part of Constitution and could not be a source of any substantive rights.
And hence, it is not enforceable in a Court of law. However, it can be used to aid the legal
interpretation of Constitution where language is found to be ambiguous or is capable of two
meanings.
• Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala: The Court held that Preamble is a part of Constitution
and could be used to interpret statutes and Constitution, provided the language was ambiguous.
Preamble is amendable and subject to limitation of amending powers under Art.368 since it's a
part of the Constitution but the basic features of the Preamble cannot be altered.
Constitutionalism and rule of law

• I.R Coelho v. State of TN: Constitutionalism requires control on the power of the govt so that it
does not destroy the democratic principles on which it is based. It promotes checks and balances,
requires diffusion of powers necessitating independent centers of decision making.
• Maru Ram v. UOI: Constitutionalism abhors absolutism. It is premised on rule of law in which
subjective satisfaction is replaced by objective criteria mentioned in the provisions of the
Constitution itself.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI: Court held that Constitution envisaged a transformation in order of
relations not just between the state and the individual, but also between individuals: in a
constitutional order characterized by Rule of Law, the constitutional commitment to egalitarianism
and an anti-discriminatory ethos permeates and infuses these relations.
Basic Structure doctrine

1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India: The issue before the court was regarding the validity of the
Constitution (1st Amendment) Act of 1951 that inserted Art. 31A and Art. 31B on the argument
that it takes away the rights guaranteed under Part III of the constitution. The court held that
Art.368 provides the power of amending the constitution, including fundamental rights, and the
term "Law" under Art. 13(2) covers only the ordinary laws made through the exercise of the
legislative power and not the constitutional amendment made through the constituent power. Thus,
a constitutional amendment taking away or abridging the fundamental rights will be valid.
2. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan: The Court was dealing with the question of validity of
whether the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1964 that amended the Art. 31A and placed 44
statues under the Ninth Schedule. The court held that it would not be reasonable to say that the
term "law" under Art.13(2) includes constitutional amendment acts passed under Art.368.
3. Golaknath v. State of Punjab: It prospectively overruled both the above cases to hold that that
the parliament has no power of amending Part III to abridge or take away the fundamental rights.
The Court said that the word "Law" under Art.13(2) includes Constitutional amendment, and if
the same contravenes the fundamental rights, then it may become void. After this, the government
passed 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendment Act to remove the difficulties created by
the Golaknath case.
4. Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala:
• The Court held that there exist implied or inherent limitations on the amending powers of the
parliament and Art.368 does empower them to destroy or damage the basic features of the
constitution.
Sunya IAS – Choice of Toppers| This file is part of our MAINS CONTENT BOOSTER Program Page 1
https://t.me/UPSC_TEST_2024
• The Court further 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.
5. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain: In this case the doctrine of basic structure was affirmed and
established. The Court struck down the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act which stated that no
court has jurisdiction over the election disputes of the Prime Minister. The Court held that
democracy and Rule of Law forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
6. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India: The Court held laid down that the power of amendment
under Article 368 is limited and exercise of such power cannot be absolute. A limited amending
power was very well part of the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution.
7. Waman Rao v. Union of India: In this is case Supreme Court examined the validity of Article
31A and Article 31B of the Constitution. The Court held that the doctrine of basic structure should
not have a retrospective effect which means all the decisions made prior to the introduction of the
doctrine shall remain valid. Thus, all the acts and regulations that were included under Ninth
Schedule of the Constitution prior to the Kesavananda decision shall remain valid while the further
amendments to the schedule can be challenged on the grounds of violation of the doctrine of the
basic structure.
8. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India: The Supreme Court stated that the power of judicial
review under Article 32 of the Supreme Court and Article 226 of the High Court is part of the basic
structure doctrine and these powers cannot be diluted by transferring them to administrative
tribunals.
9. IR Coelho v. Union of India: The Court noted that Article 368 does not make the legislature the
original Constituent Assembly. Article 368 comes with restriction and that restriction is of basic
structure. The basic structure could not be harmed or damaged by any amendment. All the
amendments made to the Constitution after 24th April 1973 have to go through a test if it is in
accordance with the essential features of the Constitution as reflected in Article 21 read
with Article 14 and Article 19.
Judicial pronouncements regarding reservation

1. State of Madras vs Champakam Dorairajan: Court struck down a Government Order of 1927
regarding caste-based reservation in government jobs and educational institutions.
2. Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India:
• The economic criterion by itself cannot identify a class as backward unless the economic
backwardness of the class is on account of its social backwardness.
• 27% Government jobs for backward classes with elimination of Creamy Layer is
constitutionally valid.
• Ordinarily, the reservations kept both under Article 16(1) and 16(4) together should not exceed
50 per cent of the appointments in a grade, cadre or service in any particular year.
• Article 16(4) permits classification of backward classes into backward and more or most
backward classes.
• The reservations in the promotions in the services are unconstitutional as they are inconsistent
with the maintenance of efficiency of administration
• Reservation shall not exceed 50%, moreover, reservation in promotions shall not be allowed.
3. Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2020): SC held 100% reservation to
ST deprives General category, SCs and OBCs of their due representation. It is violative of Article
14, 15 and 16. It held that equality of opportunity and pursuit of choice cannot be deprived
arbitrarily.
4. Dr Jaishree Laxman Rao Patil v. The Chief Minister [Maratha Reservation case 2021]: The
Court was considering the validity of Maratha reservation and 102nd Constitution Amendment
Act, 2018. The majority held that after introduction of Articles 338B and 342A to the Constitution
"the final say in regard to inclusion or exclusion of SEBCs is firstly with the President, and in case
of modification or exclusion from the lists initially published, with the Parliament. The states can
only make suggestions to the President or the Commission under Article 338B, for inclusion,
exclusion or modification, in the list to be published under Article 342A (1).
5. State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph [2021]: Court held that Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act of 1995 recognizes right to
reservation in promotion; but appointment cannot be frustrated by refusing to identify posts. The
absence of provision for reservation in recruitment rules will not defeat the right of a disabled
person as such right flows from the legislation.
6. Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra [2021]: Supreme Court read down Section
12(2)(c) Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act and held that reservation in favour
of OBCs in the concerned local bodies can be notified to the extent that it does not exceed
aggregate 50% of the total seats reserved in favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together.
Constitutional Validity of 103rd CAA

Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India: In this case the Supreme court delivered the judgment in a 3:2 ratio
declaring that the 103rd Amendment and EWS Reservations were constitutionally valid.
Validity of OBC and EWS reservation in NEET admissions

Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India: The Supreme court upheld the validity of quota for OBC in NEET
exams in All India Quota seats for undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dental courses. The Court
observed that the power of the government to provide reservations under Article 15 (4) and (5) of the
Constitution is not an “exception” to Article 15(1) and the power of the government to provide reservation
for the OBC strengthens the idea of "substantive equality" embodied in Article 15(1).
Judicial pronouncements regarding reservation in Private Educational Institutions

• TMA Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka: Government cannot introduce quota in private
unaided educational institutions as it was violative of Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(g).
Government enacted 93rd constitutional amendment act to override the decision
• P.A. Inamdar and Others v. State of Maharashtra: The Court unanimously that enforcing the
reservation policy of the State on seats in unaided professional institutions constitutes a serious
encroachment on the right and autonomy of these institutions. The Bench held that merely because
State’s resources in providing professional education are limited, it cannot force private
educational institutions, which intend to provide better professional education, to make admissions
on the basis of its reservation policy to less meritorious candidates.
• Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India: 93rd Amendment Act does not violate the basic
structure of the Constitution so far as it relates to the State maintained institutions and aided
educational institutions.
• Society for unaided private schools for Rajasthan vs. Union of India (2013): Court upheld the
validity of introduction to quota under Right to Education Act, 2009 even in private unaided
institutions as education was not a purely commercial commodity. Article 21A is an obligation on
State and Right to Education is child-centric activity rather than institution centric activity.
Judicial pronouncements regarding reservation in promotions

1. C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India (1967): Court held that Government is under no constitutional
duty to provide reservations for SCs and STs, either at the initial stage of recruitment or at the
stage of promotion.
2. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): SC held that the reservation policy cannot be extended
to promotions and put a 50% cap on reserved seats. It also held that relaxation of qualifying marks
and standards of evaluation for reservation in promotion were not permissible u/A 16(4), and it
introduced the concept of creamy layer for OBC reservations.
3. M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India (2006): Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s decision to extend
reservations for SCs and STs to include promotions with three conditions:
• Proof of benefit: State has to provide proof for the backwardness of the class benefitting from
the reservation.
• Quantifiable Data: State has to collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation
of that class in public employment.
• Administrative efficiency: State has to show how reservations in promotions would further
administrative efficiency
4. Faculty Association of AIIMS vs. Union of India (2013)- In this case, a five-judge bench of the
Supreme Court ruled that there are certain jobs for which merit alone should be the sole criteria.
However, the same was overruled in a review petition with the court saying that the Government
was free to amend the Constitution to provide reservation in faculty for super-speciality posts.
5. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018): Supreme Court ruled out need for collecting
quantifiable data to demonstrate backwardness of public employees belonging to the SC/STs to
provide reservations for them in promotions
6. B.K Pavithra v. Union of India (2019): Supreme Court upheld Karnataka Extension of
Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the
Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2018. The enactment provides for consequential
seniority to SCs and STs with retrospective effect from 1978
7. Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand (2020): The Court held that Article 16(4) and 16(4-A)
are in the nature of enabling provisions, vesting a discretion on the State Government to consider
providing reservations, if the circumstances so warrant. State cannot be directed to give
reservations for appointment in public posts. However, if the state wishes to exercise its discretion
and make such provision, it has to collect quantifiable data showing ‘inadequacy of representation
of that class in public services.
Cases of local reservation

• Dr. Pradeep Jain v Union of India (1984): to regard an individual from one state as an outsider
in another state “would be to deny him his constitutional rights and to derecognise the essential
unity and integrity of the country by treating it as if it were a mere conglomeration of independent
States.”
• Sunanda Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1995): Supreme Court affirmed the observation
in Pradeep Jain to strike down a state government policy that gave 5% extra weightage to
candidates who had studied with Telugu as the medium of instruction.
• Kailash Chand Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan (2002): The court held that “measures taken by
the State on considerations of localism are not sanctioned by the constitutional mandate of
equality”.
• Uttar Pradesh v. Pradip Tandon: The reservation for rural areas cannot be sustained on the
ground that the rural areas represent socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. This
reservation appears to be made for majority population of the State. Eighty per cent of the
population of the State cannot be a homogeneous class. No reservation can be made on the basis
of place of birth as that would offend Art. 15.
Freedom of Speech and Expression

• Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras: SC ruled that freedom of speech lay at the foundation of all
democratic organisation and 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 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.
• Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India: The Supreme Court held that the expression
freedom of the press has not been used in Article 19 but it is comprehended within Article 19(1)(a).
The expression means freedom from interference from an authority, which would have the effect
of interference with the content and circulation of newspapers. There cannot be any interference
with that freedom in the name of public interest.
• Election Commission of India v MR Vijaya Bhaskar [2021]: ECI filed a case against
publication of the oral remarks of Madras High Court that the ECI was "singularly responsible for
COVID second wave" and "should probably be booked for murder charges". The SC rejecting the
plea of ECI, emphasized that the media coverage of court hearings was part of freedom of press,
had a bearing on citizens' right to information and also on the accountability of the judiciary.
Right to Protest
• Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India & Others: The Court held that
the citizens have a fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest which cannot be removed
by arbitrary executive or legislative action.
• Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (Shaheen Bagh Case): The Court held that the right to
protest in public places in not absolute in nature and that public places cannot be occupied
indefinitely. Court further said that "while democracy and dissent go hand in hand, the
demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated place alone."
• Rakesh Vaishav v. Union of India [Farm Laws case 2021]: Right to protest is part of a
fundamental right and can as a matter of fact, be exercised subject to public order. There can
certainly be no impediment in the exercise of such rights as long as it is non-violent and does not
result in damage to the life and properties of other citizens and is in accordance with law. Thus,
farmers' protest should be allowed to continue without impediment and without any breach of
peace either by the protesters or the police
Right to Internet
• Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala: Kerala High court recognized that mobile phones and internet
access through it are part and parcel of the day-to-day life. The court took the view that right to be
able to access the internet has been read into the fundamental right to life and liberty, as well as
privacy under Article 21. The court added that it constitutes an essential part of the infrastructure
of freedom of speech and expression.
• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India: The Supreme Court held that right to freedom of speech
and expression and right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
over the medium of internet is constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).
Right to life and liberty

• AK Gopalan v. State of Madras: 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.
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration: Supreme Court held that the ‘right to life’ included the
right to lead a healthy life to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions. It
would even include the right to protect a person’s tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives
meaning to a man’s life. In addition, it consists of the Right to live and sleep in peace and the
Right to repose and health.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Art. 21. The
Court held that the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes within its ambit the
right to live with human dignity. Court held that ‘Procedure established by law’ within the
meaning of Article 21 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.
• In Re: Alarming Newspaper Report Regarding Kanwar Yatra in State of UP [2021]:
Supreme Court suo motu took cognizance against UP-government’s decision to allow Kanwar
Yatra pilgrimage amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court held that this is a matter which
concerns every one of us as citizens of India, and goes to the very heart of Article 21, which has
a pride of place in the fundamental rights Chapter of our Constitution. The health of the citizenry
of India and their right to life is paramount. All other sentiments, albeit religious, are subservient
to this most basic fundamental right.
• Kerala Union of Working Journalists v. Union of India [2021]: Supreme Court observed that
the most precious fundamental 'right to life' unconditionally embraces even an undertrial while
directing to shift Kerala journalist Sidhique Kappan from Mathura Jail in Uttar Pradesh to a
Government hospital in Delhi for medical treatment.
Right to Privacy
1. M.P Sharma v. Satish Chandra: Supreme Court held that the drafters of the Constitution did not
intend to subject the power of search and seizure to a fundamental right of privacy.
2. Kharak Singh vs. State of UP: Extending the dimension of ‘personal liberty,’ the apex court for
the first time declared right to privacy to fall under the purview of Article 21. The court defined
the right of personal liberty in Art. 21 as a right of an individual to be free from restrictions or
encroachments on his person, whether those restrictions or encroachments are directly imposed or
indirectly brought about by calculated measures.
3. Govind vs. State of MP: The Supreme Court held that right to privacy cannot be made an absolute
right. Subject to reasonable restrictions, the right to privacy could be made valid and will have to
go through a process of case-by-case development.
4. Rajagopal vs. State of T.N: The Court defined privacy as part of Article 21 and as a right to be
let alone. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage,
procreation, motherhood, childbearing and education among other matters. None can publish
anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and
whether laudatory or critical.
5. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [Aadhaar case]: Right to Privacy is a fundamental and
inalienable right and attaches to the person covering all information about that person and the
choices that he/ she makes. Court laid down a four-fold test to determine proportionality:
• Legitimate Goal: The law should seek to achieve a legitimate state aim
• Proportionality: There should be a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted
to achieve them
• Procedural Guarantees: To check against the abuse of State interference
Right to be forgotten
• Justice (Retd.) K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India: Supreme Court observed that the “right of
an individual to exercise control over his personal data and to be able to control his/her own life
would also encompass his right to control his existence on the Internet”.
• Zulfiqar Ahman Khan v. M/S Quintillion Business Media [2019]: Delhi High Court has
recently held that Right to be forgotten and the Right to be left alone are inherent aspects of the
fundamental right to privacy and that #MeToo campaign cannot become a `Sullying #UToo’
campaign forever.
• Jorawer Singh Mundy v. Union of India (2021): The petitioner, an American citizen, had visited
India in 2009 and a case was filed against him under the NDPS Act, 1985, however, he was later
acquitted but the details of his case could be found on internet by any potential employer which
had put him at disadvantage. Therefore, he approached Delhi HC to protect his Right to Privacy
under Article 21. The court granted interim protection to petitioner and ordered entities hosting
the judgment to remove it. Indian Kanoon was ordered to prevent the abovementioned judgement
from being viewed by search engines such as Google, Yahoo, and others.
• X v. YOUTUBE.COM [2021]: The Delhi High Court recently citing right to be forgotten and
entitlement to protection of privacy from invasion by strangers, granted interim relief to a Bengali
actress, seeking restraint on publication and streaming of her naked videos on various online
platforms including YouTube. Court held that plaintiff is entitled “to be left alone” and “to be
forgotten” and is entitled to protection from invasion of her privacy by strangers and anonymous
callers on account of such publication/streaming/ transmission of the suit videos by defendants.
Right to Fair trial

• Zahira Habibulla Sheikh v. State of Gujarat: Supreme Court observed that "Fair trial means a
trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is
being tried is eliminated. If the witnesses get threatened or are forced to give false evidence that
also would not result in a fair trial. The failure to hear material witnesses is certainly denial of a
fair trial."
• Neelam Katara v. Union of India: Delhi High Court observed that if witnesses fail to testify due
to fear or inducement, "the foundation of the administration of justice not only gets weakened but
it may even get obliterated."
Right to Die
• P. Rathinam v. Union of India: Supreme Court while recognising the right to die with dignity
struck down Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (Attempt to commit suicide) as unconstitutional.
• Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab: In this case, Rathinam decision was subsequently overruled by
the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that suicide,
being an unnatural termination of one's life, is 'incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of
- right to life'.
• Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India: The question of legality of passive
euthanasia was looked into and the Supreme Court reiterated that right to life does not include the
right to die.
• Common Cause v. Union of India [2018]: The concept of 'living will' as an 'Advanced Medical
Directive' was introduced. The judgement goes on to recognise the right to die with dignity and
how it can be exercised.
National Security and Fundamental Rights

• Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India: The validity of draconian
provisions of the AFSPA were upheld by Supreme Court without even stating any reference to
principles of equality, liberty and life enshrined in Constitution.
• Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India [Pegasus case]: National security cannot be the bugbear
that judiciary shies away from, by virtue of its mere mentioning. Although the Court should be
circumspect in encroaching the domain of national security, no omnibus prohibition can be called
for against judicial review. Mere invocation of national security by State does not render the Court
a mute spectator.
Right to Education
• Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (!989): Though the constitution doesn’t, explicitly, mentions
the Right to Education as a fundamental right but through Directive Principles and Preamble of
the Constitution it becomes clear that the state is expected to provide education for its citizens and
the state was directed to have right to education depending on its economic capacity.
• Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh: It was held in this case that right to education
exists only till the age of 14 years. The court emphasized the involvement of Private institutions
(particularly in higher education). Court decided that though private institutions are considerably
autonomous the state has the authority to regulate these institutions to prevent commercialization
of education. Capitation fee was denied but an adequate fee to be charged was permitted.
• Farzana Batool v. Union of India & Ors. [2021]: Court held that state has an affirmative
obligation to facilitate access to education, at all levels. While the right to pursue higher
(professional) education has not been spelt out as a fundamental right in Part III of the Constitution,
it bears emphasis that access to professional education is not a governmental largesse. Instead, the
State has an affirmative obligation to facilitate access to education, at all levels
Freedom of religion
S.R Bommai v. Union of India: The Court observed that while freedom of religion is guaranteed to all
persons in India, from the point of view of State, the religion, faith or belief of a person is immaterial. To
the State, all are equal and are entitled to be treated equally. The Court held that secularism is one of the
basic features of the Constitution.
Rights of minorities
TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka: 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
Right to Information
1. State of UP v. Raj Narain (1975): Right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by
Article 19(1)(a) included the right to know every public act, everything that is done in public way
and by their public functionaries. First time SC stated that citizen's right to know arises from
fundamental right of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution.
2. S.P Gupta v. UOI (1981): Right to know is implicit in right to free speech and expression and
disclosure regarding the functioning of the government must be a rule.
3. PUCL v. UOI: Right to information was further elevated to the status of Human Rights necessary
for making governance transparent and accountable. Emphasized that governance must be made
participatory.
4. Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India [2019]: The Supreme Court had issued a slew of directives
regarding the filing up of vacancies in Central and State Information Commissions directing that:
vacancies be filled up within 6 months; vacancies be advertised well in time and selection criteria
adopted by search committee be made public.
5. CPIO, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal: The office of the CJI to be under the ambit
of the RTI Act as CJI does not hold information on the personal assets of judges in a fiduciary
capacity. Thus, disclosure of details of serving judges’ personal assets was not a violation of their
right to privacy and cannot be exempted from RTI.
6. DAV College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instruction (2019):
Supreme Court held that NGOs which receive substantial finances from the government whether
directly or indirectly fall under the category of 'public authority' defined u/s 2(h) of RTI Act 2005.
• Substantial finances mean a large portion and not necessarily a major portion or more than
50%. If the NGO/Society can't carry out its activities effectively without support from
government it will be termed as substantially financed. It includes free land given by
government or on discount to hospitals, educational institutions etc.
Relation between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy
• Champak Dorairajan vs. the State of Madras: Supreme Court held that DPSP cannot override
the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India i.e. the Fundamental Rights.
• State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas: Supreme Court said that Fundamental rights and DPSP should
be built in such a way to be with each other and every effort should be taken by the court to resolve
the dispute between them.
• Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation: Supreme Court has submitted that DPSP are
fundamental in the governance of the country so equal importance should be given to meaning and
concept of fundamental rights
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India: The harmony and balance between fundamental rights and
directive principles are also part of the basic structure, and anything that destroys the balance is an
ipso facto violation of the doctrine.
• Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India: The Right to live human dignity, free from
exploitation enshrined under Article 21 derives its life and breath from the Directive Principles of
State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Article 41 and 42 of the
Constitution.
Separation of Power
• Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab: Supreme Court held that Indian Constitution has not
indeed recognized the doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity but the functions of
the different parts or branches of the government have been sufficiently differentiated.
• I.C. Golak Nath v State of Punjab: The constitution brings into existence different
constitutional entitles, namely the union, the state and the union territories. It creates three major
instruments of power, namely the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. It demarcates their
jurisdiction minutely and expects them to exercise their respective powers without overstepping
their limits. They should function with the spheres allotted to them.
• Kesavananda Bharti v. Union of India: Court recognized separation of power as part of basic
structure of the Constitution. None of the three separate organs of the Republic can take over the
functions assigned to the other. This scheme of the Constitution cannot be changed even by
resorting to Article 368 of the Constitution.
• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain: Court held in the Indian Constitution there is separation of
powers in a broad sense only. A rigid separation of powers as under the American Constitution or
under the Australian Constitution does not apply to India.
Office of Profit
1. Guru Gobind Basu v. Shankari Prasad Ghosal: The test to determine whether a person holds
an office of profit or not depends on several factors like who is the appointing authority, is it vested
with the power to terminate the appointment, which authority determines the remuneration and
what is its source and what are the powers that come with holding a position.
2. Pradyut Bordoloi v. Swapan Roy: Supreme Court laid down four broad principles for
determining whether an office attracts constitutional disqualification
• Whether the government exercises control over appointment, removal, and performance of the
functions of the office
• whether the office has any remuneration attached to it,
• whether the body in which the office is held has certain specific powers like releasing money,
allotment of land, granting licenses, etc., and
• whether the office enables the holder to influence by way of patronage.
3. Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India: Court said that, "payment of honorarium, in addition to daily
allowances like compensatory allowances, rent-free accommodation, and chauffeur-driven car at
the state expense, are clearly in the nature of remuneration and a source of pecuniary gain and
hence constitute profit.
Office of Governor
• Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab: Court ruled against the deification of any individual like
Lieutenant Governor, which renders elections to become “Dead Sea fruits”.
• B.P. Singhal v. Union of India: The President has the power to remove a Governor at any time
without giving him or her any reason, and without granting an opportunity to be heard. However,
this power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. The mere reason
that a Governor is at variance with the policies and ideologies of the central government, or that
the central government has lost confidence in him or her, is not sufficient to remove a Governor.
• Nabam Rebia judgment v. Deputy Speaker: Supreme Court ruled that the exercise of
Governor’s discretion Article 163 is limited and his choice of action should not be arbitrary or
fanciful. It must be a choice dictated by reason, actuated by good faith and tempered by caution.
• Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018): The Apex Court held that democratically elected
Government shall have adequate powers, and in matters of difference of opinion between Council
of Ministers and Lieutenant Governor, power to refer to President shall be an exceptional option
and only applied to uphold constitutional morality.
Ordinance making power

• R.C Cooper v. Union of India: Supreme Court held that the President’s decision to promulgate
ordinance could be challenged on the grounds that ‘immediate action’ was not required, and the
ordinance had been issued primarily to bypass debate and discussion in the legislature.
• AK Roy v. Union of India: The Court, in this case, reiterated the fact that “judicial review is not
excluded in regard to the question relating to the President’s satisfaction”. It also lay a cautionary
note that judicial review should be exercised by the Court on substantial grounds only and not at
every casual and passing challenge.
• DC Wadhwa v. State of Bihar: 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 v. State of Bihar: SC ruled that the authority to issue ordinances is not
an absolute entrustment, but is “conditional upon satisfaction that circumstances exist rendering it
necessary to take immediate action”. Further, Court held that the re-promulgation of ordinances
is a fraud on the Constitution and a subversion of democratic legislative processes.
Pardoning power
1. Maru Ram v. Union of India: The Apex Court said that Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution
can be exercised by the Central and State Governments, not by the President and Governor on their
own. The advice of the appropriate Government binds the Head of the State.
2. Kehar Singh v. Union of India: The Supreme Court observed, “The power to pardon is a part of
the constitutional scheme and it should be so treated also in the Indian Republic. It has been
reposed by the people through the Constitution in the Head of the State, and enjoys high status.”
As regards this power, the Court observed the following things:
• The power to pardon rests on the advice tendered by the Executive to President, who, must act
in accordance with such advice of Council of Ministers.
• It is open to the President in the exercise of the power vested in him by Art. 72 of the
Constitution of scrutinise the evidence on the record of the criminal case and come to a
different conclusion from that recorded by the court.
• In doing so, the President does not amend or modify or supersede the judicial record. The
judicial record remains intact. and undisturbed. The President acts in a wholly different plane
from that in which the court acted.
• He acts under a constitutional power, the nature of which is entirely different from the judicial
power and cannot be regarded as an extension of it.
• The practical effect of the Presidential act is to remove the stigma of guilt from the accused or
to remit the sentence imposed on him.
• There is no right in the condemned person to insist on an oral hearing before the President. The
proceeding before the President is of an executive character, and he has no right to insist on
presenting on oral argument.
• The manner of consideration of petition lies within the discretion of President.
3. Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh: The Apex Court held that, “Judicial
review of the order of the President or the Governor under Article 72 or Article 161, as the case
may be, is available and their orders can be impugned on the following grounds:
• that the order has been passed without application of mind;
• that the order is mala fide;
• that the order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations;
• that relevant materials have been kept out of consideration;
• that the order suffers from arbitrariness".
4. Shatrughnan Chauhan v. Union of India: The Court held keeping a convict in suspense while
consideration of his mercy petition by the President is certainly an agony for him/her. It creates
adverse physical conditions and psychological stresses on the convict. Thus, if there is undue,
unexplained and inordinate delay in execution due to pendency of mercy petitions, the Court can
hear the grievance of the convict and commute the death sentence into life imprisonment on this
ground alone. The Court laid down certain procedural guidelines for mercy petition:
• As soon as a mercy petition is received, the Ministry of Home Affairs should place it along
with court records and files before the President without delay.
• Rejection of mercy petition must be forthwith communicated to the prisoner and his family in
writing.
• Death row convicts are entitled to a copy of the rejection of the mercy plea.
• Minimum 14 days interval should be there between the receipt of communication of rejection
and the date of execution.
• The Superintendent of Jail has the obligation to ensure that the family members of the prisoner
receive the communication of rejection in time.
Appointment of Judges
• S.P Gupta v. Union of India [First Judges Case]: The Supreme Court gave a literal meaning to
the word ‘consultation’ appearing in Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution. The Court took the
view that the opinion of the CJI is merely consultative and the final decision in the matter of
appointment of judges is left to the Executive.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India [Second Judges Case]:
In issues regarding the appointment of judges in higher judiciary the opinion of CJI must be given
primacy in order to minimize executive influence in the judicial functions. The court expanded the
scope of word ‘Consultation’ by construing it in equivalent terms with ‘Concurrence’. The Court
held that in matters of appointment and transfers of Judges, the role of CJI is primal in nature, who
must take into account the views of two senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court.
• In Re Presidential Reference [Third Judges case]: It was held that the opinion of the Chief
justice of India has to be formed on the basis of consultation with the collegium, comprising of
him and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges and the opinion of all members of the
collegiums in respect of each recommendation should be in writing.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another v. Union of India: In this case,
Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment for being ultra vires the basic
structure of the Constitution. The Court also held that the collegium system of appointments had
revived, and was operative.
Judiciary-related and contempt of court cases

• Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court [2018]: Supreme Court ruled that proceedings of cases
before the Supreme Court of constitutional and national importance should be broadcast to the
public. The Court held that the ability to view live broadcasts of the Supreme Court proceedings
flowed from the right of access to justice in Constitution, but said that this right should not be
absolute and provided a set of Model Guidelines which should govern the courts’ discretion on
when such broadcast should be used.
• Brahma Prakash Sharma v State of U.P.: The object of contempt proceedings is not to afford
protection to Judges personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals; it
is intended to be a protection to the public whose interests would be very much affected if by the
act or conduct of any party, the authority of the court is lowered and the sense of confidence which
people have in the administration of justice by it is weakened… It is not by stifling criticism that
confidence in courts can be created.
• Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa: The dilemma of the law of contempt arises because
of the constitutional need to balance two great but occasionally conflicting principles — freedom
of expression and fair and fearless justice. The law of contempt is not made for the protection of
judges who may be sensitive to the winds of public opinion. Judges are supposed to be men of
fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate that Judges as persons, or courts as institutions, are
entitled to no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or institutions.
• In Re: S. Mulgaokar: Justice Krishna Iyer in his separate though concurring judgement has
held "It may be better in many cases for the judiciary to adopt a magnanimously charitable attitude
even when utterly uncharitable and unfair criticism of its operations is made out of bona fide
concern for improvement".
• P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker: Supreme Court observed that the provision of contempt of court
should not be used by judges to uphold their own dignity. In a free democracy, as India, ideas,
criticisms about the judicial system or the judges should be welcomed, so long as criticisms do not
impair or hamper the administration of justice. Disapproving of the tendency among judges to treat
even technical violations or unintended acts as contempt
• In Re: Hon’ble Justice Shri C.S. Karnan (2017): It was a contempt proceeding against Justice
C.S. Karnan who was surrounded by numerous controversies. The Court observed that Justice C.S.
Karnan has consistently committed criminal contempt. Justice Karnan has scandalized several
judges and accused them of corruption and impartiality without providing any evidence regarding
the same. The Court stated that his actions constituted the grossest and gravest actions of contempt
of court. The Court held him guilty for criminal contempt of court and sentenced him to 6 months
imprisonment.
• Abhishek Kumar Singh v. G. Pattanaik [2021]: A contempt action can be taken only in respect
of established wilful disobedience of the Court order. In exercising contempt jurisdiction, the
primary concern must be whether the acts of commission or omission can be said to be
contumacious conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed default in complying with
the directions given in the judgment and order of the Court.
Judgements on Centre-State Relations
S R Bommai v. Union of India: Supreme Court laid down following things -
• Constitution is federal and characterised federalism as its ‘basic feature’. Federalism in the
Constitution is not a matter of administrative convenience but a matter of principle.
• It observed that conferring greater power upon Centre does not mean that states are mere
appendages of Centre. They have an independent constitutional existence. They are not satellites
or agents of Centre. Within the sphere allotted to them, the states are supreme.
• It was held that the President’s satisfaction has to be based on objective material.
• The Court held that the exercise of power by the President under Article 356(1) to issue
Proclamation is subject to the judicial review
• Even though Article 74(2) bars judicial review of the advice given by the Ministers concerned, it
does not bar scrutiny of the material on the basis of which the advice is given.
Anti-Defection Law
1. Ravi S. Naik vs Union of India: The Apex Court explained that the term "voluntarily giving up
membership" had a wider connotation than the term 'resignation'. The Court explained that the
term would also include references that could be drawn from the conduct of the individual and that
an MP/MLA need not formally resign from their party to attract disqualification under the anti-
defection law.
2. Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachilhu and Others: The Supreme Court struck down condition laid down
in the 10th Schedule that the decision of the Presiding Officer is not subject to judicial review. The
Court laid down grounds for review of the decision of the Presiding Officer- infirmities based on
violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, noncompliance with rules of natural justice, and
perversity. However, the Court clarified that there arose no occasion for any judicial intervention
until the Presiding Officer has given his/her order.
3. Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur legislative assembly [2020]: Supreme
Court held that the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly should decide on a petition seeking
disqualification of a member under 10th Schedule of the Constitution within a period of 3 months
from the date on which petition is filed. The Court further recommended:
• The Court recommended the Parliament to amend the Constitution regarding the role of
Speaker as a quasi-judicial authority while dealing with disqualification petitions under the
anti-defection law (when such a speaker continues to belong to a particular political party).
• The Court suggested that an independent tribunal can be appointed which will substitute the
Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies to deal with matters of disqualifications
under Tenth Schedule to be headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired Chief Justice
of a High Court.
Judgements related to death and mercy petition

1. Jagmohan v. State of U.P: Supreme Court held that death penalty does not violate Articles 14,
19 and 21 of the Constitution. It was held that the choice between the death penalty and life
imprisonment should be based on circumstances, facts, and the nature of the crime recorded during
the trial.
2. Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P: The Court held that unless it was shown that the criminal was
dangerous to society, capital punishment would not be justified.
3. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab: The Supreme Court held that death penalty can only be said to
be constitutional when it was applied as an exceptional penalty in the rarest of the rare cases. The
Court further 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
4. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab: Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for the application of
the "rarest of rare" rule to specific cases. The guidelines were couched in fairly broad terms that
relate to several considerations such as: "Manner of commission of murder", "Motive for the
commission of murder", "Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime", "Magnitude of
crime" and "Personality of victim of murder".
5. Mithu v. State of Punjab: Supreme Court ruled that mandatory death penalty is unconstitutional.
It struck down Section 303 in the IPC, which entailed a mandatory death sentence for a person
who commits murder while serving a life term in another case. The Supreme Court ruled Section
303 violated Articles 14 and 21 since an unreasonable distinction was sought to be made between
two classes of murders.
6. State of Punjab vs Dalbir Singh: Supreme Court held that mandatory death penalty as
punishment for crimes under Section 27 (3) of the Arms Act, 1959, was unconstitutional.
Judgements on Women Empowerment

• Mohd. Ahmad Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum: Shah Bano filed a case in 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. The SC decided it
in favour of Shah Bano using secular criminal procedure code regardless of religion.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan: Court issued guidelines to prevent sexual harassment against
women in workplaces. All complaints of sexual harassment by any woman employee would be
directed to this committee.
• Shayara Bano vs Union of India: In this case Supreme Court declared the practice of Triple
Talaq, i.e., talaq-e-biddat, as unconstitutional by 3:2 majority.
• Laxmi v. Union of India: A PIL was brought about by Laxmi, an acid attack survivor which
issued guidelines for betterment of Acid Attack Survivor. The Supreme court verdict-imposed
restrictions on the sale of Acid and provide compensation to the victim. Further, no hospital/clinic
can refuse for treatment of an acid attack victim and if any such complaint is made, the victim can
take further appropriate legal action.
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala: A Constitutional bench of SC lifted the
age-old ban on entry of women between the ages of 10-50, inside the Sabrimala temple. The court
held that devotion and faith must not be subjected to gender discrimination. Stereotyping
menstruating women in the present times would permit the religious patriarchy to flourish. The
restriction on entry was a violation of the right to worship of woman, as assured by Articles 14 and
25 of the Constitution.
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India: The 5-judge bench unanimously struck down Section 497 IPC
saying that it was unconstitutional since the very basis for criminalising adultery was the
assumption that a woman is considered as the property of the husband and cannot have relations
outside the marriage. The said section violated the right to privacy as well as the liberty of women
by discriminating against married women and perpetuating gender stereotypes.
• Federation of Obstetric and Gynecological Societies of India (FOGSI) v. Union of India
(2019): Giving preference to a male child is violative of Article 39A and against the mandate of
Article 51A (e) which casts a Constitutional duty on citizens to renounce practices derogatory to
the dignity of women. The Court observed that female foeticide is the most inhumane, immoral
and anti-social act. The court said that the PCPNDT Act is a social welfare legislation, which was
conceived in light of the skewed sex-ratio of India and to avoid the consequences of the same.
• Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020): Supreme Court held that daughters have equal
coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property. The court held that this right arises
by taking birth. So, when a daughter is born, she also steps into the coparcenary as that of a son.
However, a daughter born before can claim these rights only with effect from the date of the
amendment, i.e., September 9, 2005, with saving of past transactions.
• The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2020): Permanent Commission should
be granted to women in the army regardless of their service, in all the streams where the Union
Government has already taken a decision to grant the Short Service Commission for women. The
court also held that absolute exclusion of women from command assignments is against Article 14
of the Constitution and unjustified.
• Union of India v. Mudrika Singh [2021]: The Supreme Court observed that the right against
sexual harassment is vested in all persons as a part of their right to life and right to dignity under
Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Kush Kalra v. Union of India [2021]: The Supreme Court passed an interim order allowing
women candidates to appear for National Defence Academy (NDA) entrance exam ordered UPSC
to give wide publicity to the order so that people can benefit from the same.
Judgements related to Transgenders, Homosexuality

• National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India: Supreme Court declared transgender people
to be a 'third gender' affirming that the fundamental rights granted under the Constitution will be
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.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India: Supreme Court scrapped Section 377 of IPC calling it
irrational and arbitrary. The Court held that LGBT Community has same rights as of any ordinary
citizen and respect for individual choice is the essence of liberty.
Judgements for empowerment of Schedule Castes and Tribes

• Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs State of Maharashtra [2018]: To curb the misuse of Scheduled
Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities POA) Act, 1989, Supreme Court diluted the Act. Court
laid down safeguards, including provisions for anticipatory bail and a “preliminary enquiry” on
whether complaint under the 1989 law is “frivolous or motivated” before registering a case; an
arrest could only be made if there is “credible” information and police officer has “reason to
believe” that an offence was committed. Even if a preliminary inquiry was held and a case
registered, arrest is not necessary, and that no public servant is to be arrested without the written
permission of the appointing authority.
• Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India [2020]: Supreme Court sustained the Constitutional
validity of section 18-A of “The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act,2018” and nullified the effect of Kashinath Mahajan case. The court also held
that the guidelines laid in the Kashinath Mahajan case had placed superfluous burden upon people
belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes.
Judgements related to elections

1. UOI v. ADR [2002] – Court made it mandatory to file an affidavit before the returning officer
disclosing criminal cases pending against him
2. Lily Thomas v. Union of India [2013] – Court held convicted MPs and MLAs will be
immediately disqualified from holding membership of the House without being given 3 months’
time for appeal [struck down section 8(4) which provided 3 months’ time].
3. PUCL v. UOI [2013] – Supreme Court introduced the concept of NOTA (None of the Above)
Option mandatorily in EVMs.
4. Public Interest Foundation v. UOI [2014]: Court directed all subordinate courts to give their
verdict on cases involving legislators within a year, or give reasons for not doing so to the Chief
Justice of the HC.
5. Public Interest Foundation v. UOI (2018): Supreme Court recommended Parliament to bring
out a law to make it mandatory for political parties to revoke membership of persons against whom
charges are framed in heinous and grievance offences to ensure they do not enter political stream
6. Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora [2020] – Criminalization of Politics is an “extremely
disastrous and lamentable situation”, and raised concerns about “unsettlingly increasing trend” in
the country. Court issued some directions:
• Mandatory publications: Mandatory for political parties to publish detailed information
regarding candidates with pending criminal cases and reasons for selecting them over others
and why individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected within 48 hours of the
selection of the candidate or not less than 2 weeks before the first date for filing the
nominations whichever is earlier
• Reasons for selection of candidates: They shall be with reference to the qualifications,
achievements and merit of the candidate concerned, and not mere “winnability” at the polls.
• Non-compliance: If directions not followed EC to bring such non-compliance to the notice of
SC as contempt of SC's order/directions.
7. Brajesh Singh v Sunil Arora [2021]: In order to make the right of information of a voter more
effective and meaningful, the Court found it necessary to issue following further directions:
• Political parties are to publish information regarding criminal antecedents of candidates on the
homepage of their websites, thus making it easier for the voter to get to the information that
has to be supplied.
• The ECI is directed to create a dedicated mobile application containing information published
by candidates regarding their criminal antecedents;
• The ECI is directed to carry out an extensive awareness campaign to make every voter aware
about his right to know and the availability of information regarding criminal antecedents of
all contesting candidates.
• For the aforesaid purposes, ECI is also directed to create a separate cell which will also monitor
the required compliances so that the Supreme Court can be apprised promptly of non-
compliance by any political party of the directions contained in the Court’s orders,
• If such a political party fails to submit such compliance report with ECI, ECI shall bring such
non-compliance by the political party to the notice of the Supreme Court as being in contempt
of the Court’s orders/directions, which shall in future be viewed very seriously.
Judgements related to police reforms

1. Prakash Singh v. Union of India: Supreme Court instructed central and state
governments to comply with certain directives laying down practical mechanisms to kick-start
reform:
• fixing the tenure and selection of the DGP to avoid situations where officers about to retire in
a few months are given the post.
• In order to ensure no political interference, a minimum tenure was sought for the Inspector
General of Police
• SC further directed postings of officers being done by Police Establishment Boards (PEB)
comprising police officers and senior bureaucrats to insulate powers of postings and transfers
from political leaders.
• setting up State Police Complaints Authority to give a platform where common people
aggrieved by police action could approach.
• SC directed separation of investigation and law and order functions to better improve policing
• setting up of State Security Commissions (SSC) that would have members from civil society
• forming a National Security Commission.
2. Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh: Court issued a slew of directions to all States and UTs to
install CCTV cameras in all police stations and all areas except the inside of washrooms, should
be left uncovered by the CCTV. Further, the CCTVs must be equipped with night vision and
audio/video footage recording facilities. The CCTV footages should be preserved, for a minimum
of 6 months. Further, the Court made the above directions applicable to the offices of central
agencies like CBI, NIA, ED, NCB, DRI and SFIO as well.
Judgements on Fake Encounters

• Prakash Kadam v Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta: Where a fake encounter is proved against a
policeman in a trial, they must be given death sentence, treating it as rarest of rare cases". Fake
Encounters are cold blooded, brutal murder by persons who are supposed to uphold the law
• Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand: Supreme Court held that the extrajudicial killings are not
legal under our criminal justice administration system and equated it to state-sponsored terrorism.
• PUCL v. State of Maharashtra: The Court held that the ‘encounter’ philosophy is a criminal
philosophy because it affects the credibility of rule of law and administration of criminal justice
system. In an attempt to restore public faith in the police force, the Court issued 16 guidelines to
standardise the procedure for thorough, effective and independent investigation.
Judgements related to prison reforms

• State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy: A prisoner, whether a convict, under-
trail or detenu is a human being and entitled to all fundamental rights until liberty is constitutionally
curtailed.
• Ramamurthy vs. State of Karnataka: Supreme Court laid directions to bring about a unified
national consolidated framework on prison laws and to prepare a draft model prison manual,
subsequently a committee was set up in the Bureau of Police Research and Development
(BPR&D).
Judgements on Custodial deaths and torture

1. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP: The Apex Court ordered that no arrest can be made on mere
allegation or suspicion. It issued several directives on the modalities to be followed at the time of
the arrest. The arrested person would have the right that any of his friends or relatives be informed
about his arrest and location of detention and the police would inform him about this right and
make a suitable entry in the diary.
2. Ramamurthy vs. State of Karnataka: 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. Court held that methods of
investigation involving torture are against the fundamental right to life and dignity as under Article
21 of the Constitution.
3. D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal: Apex Court has laid down specific guidelines required to be
followed while making arrests. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are given
hereunder:
• The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee
should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations.
• Whenever a person is being arrested, arrest memo should be made and should be attested by
family member and if not present by a respectable member of the society containing all details
- place of arrest, time of arrest and the entire process should be recorded in police register
• A person who has been arrested shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person
known to him, as soon as practicable, along with the time, place of arrest and venue of custody
of an arrestee must be notified by the police
• Where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the
Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned
• The person arrested must be made aware of his right to have someone informed of his arrest
or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
• All data related to arrest must be recorded in Centralized Police Control Room.
• The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout
the interrogation.
• The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by the trained doctor every 48 hours
during his detention in custody.
• Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to
the Magistrate for his record.
• A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters where
information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated.
Public Interest Litigation

• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar – It is the first reported case of PIL in India. The case was
filed by an advocate on basis of a news report pertaining to deplorable condition of under-trial
prisoners in Bihar. Supreme Court provided a wider interpretation for Article 21 and held that
speedy trial is the fundamental right of every citizen. The Supreme Court pointed out that the State
must ensure free legal aid and a speedy trial for the administration of justice.
• Bandhua Mukti Mocha v. Union of India: This PIL was filed via Article 32 directly before the
Supreme Court of India and petitioned the Court to direct the State of UP to take steps to end child
labor. Thereafter a Court-appointed committee reported the enormity of child exploitation in UP’s
carpet industry, finding that many children were kidnapped from Bihar, that the industry largely
employed minor children under 14 years, and that many experienced physical abuse.
• SP Gupta v. Union of India [Judges Transfer case] - Where a legal wrong or injury is caused
to a person or to a class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right and
such person(s) is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically
disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can
maintain an application for appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226
and in case of breach of any fundamental right in SC court under Article 32.
• Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of WB - PIL should not be "publicity interest litigation" or
"private interest litigation" or "politics interest litigation” or the latest trend "paise income
litigation". If not properly regulated and abuse averted it also becomes a tool in unscrupulous hands
to release vendetta and wreak vengeance as well. There must be real public interest involved and
not merely an adventure of the knight errant or poke one's nose into for a probe".
Judgements related to Environment protection

• M.C Mehta v. Kamal Nath: For the first time, the Supreme court, used the principle of
exemplary damages, and held that the polluters must pay for the damages caused by them.
Moreover, in this case, the court observed the Polluter Pays Principle and Public Trust Doctrine.
• M.C Mehta v. Union of India [Oleum Gas Leak case]: The Supreme court uncovered the
principle of absolute liability and held companies or any enterprise engaged in inherently
hazardous activities are liable to compensate all the people who are affected by an accident.
• M.C Mehta v. Union of India [Prevention of Ganga pollution]: A writ petition was filed for
stopping leather industries in Kanpur from disposing of the toxic waste and polluting the Ganga
River. Primarily, the court directed the industries to stop releasing toxic waste till the treatment
plants are incorporated to treat toxic water before releasing it into Ganga. Further, ordered the
installation of water treatment plants in industries.
• Arjun Gopal v. Union of India: Supreme Court back in 2018 had stopped short of a complete
ban and had instead permitted only "low-emission" or "green" firecrackers to be used and
manufactured. All high-emission firecrackers were banned in an effort to balance the right to
livelihood of firecracker manufacturers and protecting the right to health of the citizens.
• M.C Mehta v. Union of India: Taking serious note of the air pollution which had engulfed the
Delhi-NCR area, the Supreme Court in 2019 had passed a slew of directions. Court also asked why
State Governments of Haryana, Punjab and Delhi should not be held liable to compensate, and
also the incumbents who are burning the stubble in spite of clear restrictions imposed by this Court
and statutory prohibition.
• MK Ranjith Singh v. Union of India [2021]: SC passed directions regarding the under-grounding
of overhead electric lines in Rajasthan and Gujarat in order to protect Great Indian Bustard from
extinction. A High-Level Committee has been constituted to examine the feasibility of under-
grounding of over-head power lines. The Court has ordered that the recommendations of the
committee shall be implemented by power-generators and other stake-holders.
Miscellaneous
1. Shakti Vahini v. Union of India: In this case the court directed the state governments and the
police department to make a robust mechanism that can help the society to eliminate the crime of
Honour Killing. Further, the court has laid down certain preventive, punitive, and remedial
measures for the states and the police administration in order to build a strong system.
2. Cow Vigilantism - Tahseen Poonawalla v. Union of India [2018]: The Court in relation to
increasing incidents of cow vigilantism observed when any core group with some kind of idea take
the law into their own hands, it ushers in anarchy, chaos, disorder and, eventually, there is an
emergence of a violent society. Vigilantism cannot be given room to take shape, for it is absolutely
a perverse notion. The court also laid down preventive, remedial as well as punitive measures to
curb such incidents.
3. Gram Nyayalayas - National Federation of Societies for Fast Justice v. Union of India [2020]:
Supreme Court directed those states which had failed to present a notification with regards to the
setting up of rural mobile courts or Gram Nyayalayas under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 to do
so within a month. The Apex Court also reiterated High Courts to speed up the process of starting
the consultation process with the respective state governments.
4. Cryptocurrency - Internet and Mobile Association of India v. RBI [2020]: The court struck
down the circular issued by RBI which had put a ban on the trading of virtual currencies also
known as crypto currencies. The court was of the view that restrictions imposed by the RBI on
banks and other entities in regard to the trading of virtual currency is unfair and therefore declared
the restrictions to be un-viable.
5. Kush Kalra v. Union of India [2020]: The Supreme Court held that neither State Government
nor the UT could paste posters outside the residence of COVID-19 positive persons. The judges
held that such a practice was unnecessary, counterproductive, and would lead to stigmatization of
people and their treatment as ‘untouchables’, and that such an action could be taken only after
directions from competent authority.
6. NDPS Act - Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab [2021]: While awarding the sentence/punishment
in case of the NDPS Act, the interest of the society as a whole is required to be taken into
consideration… those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death
or in inflicting death blow to a number of innocent young victims who are vulnerable, it causes
deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society, they are a hazard to the society.
7. 97th Constitution Amendment Act, 2011 - Union of India v. Rajendra Shah [2021]: The
Supreme Court upheld a 2013 judgment of the Gujarat High Court which struck down the
provisions of the Constitution (97th Amendment) Act 2011 to the extent it introduced Part IX B
in the Constitution to deal with co-operative societies.
• The bench unanimously held that the 97th CAA required ratification by at least one-half of the
state legislatures as per Article 368(2), since it dealt with an entry which was an exclusive state
subject (cooperative societies). Since such ratification was not done in the case of the 97th
Constitutional amendment, it was liable to be struck down.
• With respect to multi-state co-operative societies, the majority upheld those provisions of Part
IX B which deal with multi-state co-operative societies by applying the doctrine of
severability.
8. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India [2021]: Supreme Court set aside the provisions in the
Tribunals Reforms Ordinance 2021 which fixed the term of members of various tribunals as 4
years. The majority held that this term violated the express direction given in the earlier judgments
in Rojer Mathew and Madras Bar Association cases that the term of tribunal members should be
5 years.
9. In Re Alarming News Report About Kanwar Yatra in UP [2021]: SC directed the Kerala to
give heed to Article 21 read with Article 144. The Court further held that pressure groups of all
kinds, religious or otherwise, cannot in any manner interfere with this most fundamental right of
all the citizens of India. To give in to pressure groups so that that the citizenry of India is then laid-
bare to a nationwide pandemic discloses a sorry state of affairs.
10. State of Kerala v. K. Ajith [2021]: The purpose of bestowing privileges and immunities to elected
members of the legislature is to enable them to perform their functions without hindrance, fear or
favour. Privileges and immunities are not gateways to claim exemptions from the general law of
the land, particularly, the criminal law which governs the action of every citizen. To claim an
exemption from the application of criminal law would be to betray the trust which is impressed on
the character of elected representatives as the makers and enactors of the law.
11. In Re Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic [2021]: The Court
held that a vaccination policy exclusively relying on a digital portal would be unable to meet its
target of universal immunization owing to digital divide. It is the marginalized sections of the
society who would bear the brunt of this accessibility barrier. The Court also opined that the
CoWIN platform and other IT applications like Aarogya Setu should be made available in regional
languages to increase accessibility for persons with visual disabilities.
12. In Re Contagion of COVID Virus in Children Protection Homes [2021]: In the suo moto case
initiated by the Court to deal with problems of children affected by COVID observed that no
adoption of affected children should be permitted contrary to the provisions of JJ Act, 2015.
Invitation to persons for adoption of orphans is contrary to law as no adoption of a child can be
permitted without the involvement of CARA.
13. Reepak Kansal v. Union of India [2021]: Court held that the Disaster Management Act casts a
statutory obligation on the part of the NDMA to recommend minimum relief for the victims of a
national disaster which will also include 'ex-gratia assistance'. Accordingly, the Apex Court
directed the NDMA to come up with guidelines for giving ex gratia compensation to the family
members of persons who died due to COVID 19.
14. Attorney General for India v. Satish and another [2021]: Court held that restricting the
interpretation of the word’s "touch" or "physical contact" to "skin to skin contact" would not only
be a narrow and pedantic interpretation of the provision contained in the POCSO Act, but it would
lead to an absurd interpretation of the said provision. The most important ingredient for
constituting the offence of sexual assault is the "sexual intent" and not the "skin to skin" contact
with the child". The very object of enacting the POCSO Act is to protect the children from sexual
abuse, and if such a narrow interpretation is accepted, it would lead to a very detrimental situation,
frustrating the very object of the Act.
15. Somesh Chaurasia v. State of M.P [2021]: An independent and impartial judiciary is the
cornerstone of democracy. The courts comprised in the district judiciary are the first point of
interface with citizens, if the faith of the citizen in the administration of justice has to be preserved,
it is to the district judiciary that attention must be. Trial judges are vulnerable due to appalling
work conditions such as lack of infrastructure, inadequate protection, examples of judges being
made targets when they stand up for what is right and sadly, a subservience to the administration
of the High Court for transfers and postings.
16. Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India [2021]: While rejecting a plea to stop the deportation
of Rohingya refugees detained in Jammu, SC observed that right not to be deported is ancillary to
the fundamental right to reside or settle in any part of India guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e) of
the Constitution. The Court however clarified that Rohingyas in Jammu shall not be deported
unless the procedure prescribed for such deportation is followed.
17. Rajeev Suri v. DDA [2021]: The Supreme Court upheld the Central Government's plan for
construction of the Central Vista project and the government's proposal to construct a new
Parliament in Lutyen's Delhi. The Court further held, “We cannot be called upon to govern. For,
we have no wherewithal or prowess and expertise in that regard."
Election Commission Appointments

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner
and the Election Commissioners shall be made by the President on the advice of a Committee consisting
of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition of the Lok Sabha and Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Union Territory of Delhi

Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India, 2023: The Court held that the National Capital
Territory of Delhi has the authority to legislate and execute administrative services within the National
Capital, with the exception of public order, police, and land-related matters. Further, the Court also stated
that the Lieutenant Governor must adhere to the decisions of the Delhi government concerning services,
except in cases relating to public order, police, and land.
Rights of Sex workers

Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal: The Court using its inherent powers under Article 142
of the Constitution, issued directions for the rehabilitation measures in respect of sex workers which
include directions such as- Sex workers are entitled to equal protection of the law; Any sex worker who
is a victim of sexual assault shall be provided with all facilities given to a survivor of a sexual assault etc.
Practice of Jallikattu
Animal Welfare Board of India And Ors. v. UoI: SC upheld the validity of the practice of Jallikattu. It
upheld the constitutionality of the amendments made by the states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and
Maharashtra to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
MAINS 2023
GS 1 | GS 2 | GS 3 | GS 4
MAINS GS PAPER-WISE NOTES

ONE PAPER = ONE BOOK
Features
https://bit.ly/2022MAINSGS
Syllabus Wise Coverage
Entire Syllabus at one Place
Covers both Static & Current
Comprehensive &
Concise at the same time Order At
https://bit.ly/2022MAINSGS
To the point & Exam relevant
56/3, Bada Road, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi- 110060

Contact- https://t.me/UPSC_TEST_2024
www.sunyaias.com

IMPORTANT Judgements - Watermark

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMPORTANT Judgements - Watermark

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMPORTANT Judgements - Watermark

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

https://t.

GENERAL STUDIES (GS)

INTEGRATED PRELIMS AND MAINS COURSES

AARAMBH 2024: NCERT Bridge Course: Get your basics right!

Constitutionalism and rule of law

Basic Structure doctrine

Judicial pronouncements regarding reservation

Constitutional Validity of 103rd CAA

Validity of OBC and EWS reservation in NEET admissions

Judicial pronouncements regarding reservation in Private Educational Institutions

Judicial pronouncements regarding reservation in promotions

Cases of local reservation

Freedom of Speech and Expression

Right to life and liberty

Right to Fair trial

National Security and Fundamental Rights

Ordinance making power

Judiciary-related and contempt of court cases

Judgements related to death and mercy petition

Judgements on Women Empowerment

Judgements related to Transgenders, Homosexuality

Judgements for empowerment of Schedule Castes and Tribes

Judgements related to elections

Judgements related to police reforms

Judgements on Fake Encounters

Judgements related to prison reforms

Judgements on Custodial deaths and torture

Public Interest Litigation

Judgements related to Environment protection

Election Commission Appointments

Union Territory of Delhi

Rights of Sex workers

MAINS GS PAPER-WISE NOTES

56/3, Bada Road, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi- 110060

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.