Landmark judicial decisions changed the Constitution

Android

Prime VIP
Staff member
Landmark judicial decisions changed the Constitution as well as everyday life. Their impact still echoes.
Champakam Dorairajan Vs State of Madras 1951
Well before Arjun Singh, this case concerning admissions of backward classes to educational institutions led B.R. Ambedkar, then the law minister, to pilot the first-ever amendment to the Constitution.

K.M. Nanavati Vs State of Maharashtra 1960
The crime of passion, where Commander Kawas Maneckshaw Nanavati murdered his wife's lover, marked the end of jury trials in India when the officer was let off.
Golaknath Vs State of Punjab 1967
The Supreme Court made fundamental rights immune from amendment until Parliament reasserted its authority in 1971 by amending Articles 13 and 368 of the Constitution.
Madhav Jiwaji Rao Scindia Vs Union of India 1970
The Supreme Court rejected a 1970 presidential order abolishing titles, privileges and privy purses of India's erstwhile princely rulers.
Kesavananda Bharati Vs State of Kerala 1973
In 1971, Parliament empowered itself to amend any part of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court laid down that such amendments could not destroy the 'basic structure' of the Constitution-fundamental rights are part of the 'basic structure'.
Himmat Lal Shah Vs Commissioner of Police 1973
It dealt with a common citizen's right to hold public meetings on streets and the extent to which the state could regulate this right.
Indira Gandhi Vs Raj Narain 1975
Indira Gandhi declared Emergency after being ordered by the Allahabad High Court to vacate her seat for malpractice. The Supreme Court later overturned the decision.
A.D.M. Jabalpur Vs S. Shukla 1976
The Supreme Court declared the right to move court under Articles 14, 21 and 22 would remain suspended during the Emergency.
Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India 1978
The case caused a huge uproar over the definition of freedom of speech.The court ruled that the procedure must be fair and the law must not violate other fundamental rights.
Minerva Mills Vs Union of India 1980
The Supreme Court again applied the 'basic structure' theory, saying that social welfare laws could not curb fundamental rights.
Ramesh Dalal Vs Union of India 1988
The case dealt with the subject of pre-Partition communal violence, and how its depiction was not in violation of Constitutional articles.
Rajan Case 1981
Involving the torture and death of a final year engineering student in custody in Kerala, the case led to the resignation of K. Karunakaran, then the home minister, and imprisonment of the officers accused.
Kehar Singh Vs Delhi Administration 1984
Kehar Singh was accused of taking part in the murder of Indira Gandhi. Though the death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court, its accuracy has often been questioned.
Babri Masjid, Ayodhya Case 1994
The case questioned the Constitutional validity of the acquisition of a certain area adjoining the disputed site. The Supreme Court upheld status quo on the disputed structures.
Best Bakery Case 2006
The controversial trial came to an end with the conviction of nine people. The case related to 14 deaths in an arson attack on the Best Bakery in Vadodara in 2002. A retrial was ordered in 2004 after a local court acquitted all 21 accused.
Shah Bano Case 1985
The case, related to the issue of Muslim personal law, caused a furore as the court awarded Shah Bano a maintenance allowance after divorce.
Indira Sawhney Vs Union of India 1992
The Supreme Court upheld the implementation of recommendations made by the Mandal Commission. It also defined the "creamy layer" criteria and reiterated that the quota could not exceed 50 per cent.
St. Stephen's College Vs University of Delhi 1992
The identity of St. Stephen's College as a minority-run institution was put under the scanner as it was receiving grant-in-aid from the Government. The court ruled that grants could not change the minority character of an institution.
S.R. Bommai Vs Union of India 1994
The case laid down the guidelines in proving a majority under Article 356. The recent Arjun Munda case judgement was also passed with reference to the Bommai case.
R. Rajagopal Vs State of Tamil Nadu 1994
The case decided that the right to privacy subsisted even if a matter became one of public record. The right to be let alone is part of personal liberty.
P.A. Inamdar Vs State of Maharashtra 2005
The Supreme Court stated that "neither the policy of reservation can be enforced by the state nor any quota of admissions be carved out in private educational institutions".
Sarla Mudgal Vs Union of India 1995
The Supreme Court held that a second marriage solemnised while the first existed was a punishable offence, though it did not become null and void.
Jamaat-e-Islami Hind Vs Union of India 1995
The association was banned for unlawful activities. But the decision was reversed due to lack of evidence.
Ministry of I&B Vs Cricket Association of Bengal 1995
The case, which dealt with the broadcast of the Hero Cup, was the first tussle involving the telecast of an international event by a private broadcaster.
Vishaka Vs State of Rajasthan 1997
For the first time, sexual harassment, including sexually coloured remarks and physical contact, was explicitly and legally defined as an unwelcome sexual gesture. It stated that every instance of sexual harassment is a violation of fundamental rights.
Samatha Vs State of AP 1997
The Supreme Court said government land, tribal land, and forest land in scheduled areas could not be leased to non-tribals or private companies for mining or industrial operations. Such activity can only be done by tribal people or by a government undertaking.
Rupan Deol Bajaj Vs K. P. S. Gill 1998
K.P.S. Gill, former chief of Punjab Police, was fined Rs 2.5 lakh in lieu of three months' rigorous imprisonment for slapping senior IAS officer Rupan Deol Bajaj on the posterior.
Representation of the People (Amendment) Act 2002
The judgement of a three-member Bench ordered candidates contesting elections to declare their assets and all criminal cases pending against them at the time of filing of nominations.
Tamil Nadu Vs Suhas Katti 2004
The first case involving conviction under the Information Technology Act, 2000, related to the posting of obscene messages on the Internet.
Om Prakash Vs Dil Bahar 2006
In a severe deterrent to incidents of rape, the Supreme Court held that a rape accused could be convicted on the sole evidence of the victim, even if medical evidence did not prove rape.
[08/08 20:27] +91 99751 08955: 2015 SCC Vol. 7 August 7, 2015 Part 1
Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Power of High Court under — Interference in private property/civil disputes: Power of High Court under writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle disputes between private parties. Hence, High Court’s declaration that part of mortgaged land situated outside its territorial jurisdiction as unencumbered land and issuance of directions to an authority of State to demarcate unencumbered land, not permissible. [Maharaji Educational Trust v. SGS Construction & Development Pvt. Ltd.,(2015) 7 SCC 130]
Constitution of India — Arts. 14, 19(1)(a) & (2), 21, 38, 39, 299 and Preamble — Utilisation of public funds — Regulation of:Directions issued on content regulation and equal distribution of government advertising. Further clarified, the said directions are not comprehensive in nature. The gaps, if any, would be filled up by the executive arm of the Government itself. Said directions are effective till the legislature or executive frames an appropriate policy in the matter concerned. [Common Cause v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 1]
Evidence Act, 1872 — Ss. 65-A, 65-B and 65 — CCTV footage and call records — Failure to produce: Technology which now pervades every walk of life also provides reliable evidence. Law too admits electronic evidence subject to certain precautions. Electronic evidence, if omitted in a trial, creates serious doubts about prosecution case. [Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178]

Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (30 of 2004) — Ss. 6(1)(a) & (d), S. 6(8) and Rules of Interpretation of Schedules, and Sch. III r/w Notification No. 82 of 2006: Where HSN Code number is indicated against tariff item entries mentioned in Sch. III, said entries shall be interpreted in the light of Entries in Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and also as per judgments applicable to corresponding entries in Customs Tariff Act, 1975. [Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd. v. CCT, (2015) 7 SCC 126]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Ss. 17(1), (4), 5-A, 4 and 6 — Land Acquisition: Order of Full Bench of High Court, vide which land acquisition in villages of Noida and Greater Noida, through invocation of urgency provisions depriving landowners of their right to file objections under S. 5-A was upheld, affirmed as compensation given to farmers was enhanced by the High Court and developed abadi land was also allotted to them to the extent of 10% of their acquired land subject to maximum of 2500 sq m. [Savitri Devi v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 21]

TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY
Panel of doctors who were directed to examine a 14 year old rape victim, unanimously decide that her pregnancy can be terminated
Supreme Court: Following the Order of the Division Bench comprising of A.R. Dave and Kurian Joseph, JJ., whereby the petitioner’s 14 year old daughter was directed to undergo a medical examination by a team of gynecologists to ascertain that whether she is fit to abort her foetus, the panel on 30.07.2015 unanimously decided that terminating the pregnancy is necessary to preserve the physical and mental health of the girl. [Chandrakant Jayantilal Suthar v. State of Gujarat, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 668, decided on 28.07.15]
INTERPRETATION/CONSTRUCTION
Ss. 319 and 227 CrPC interpreted and distinguished
Supreme Court: Interpreting Section 319 and 227 of CrPC, the bench of S.A. Bobde and R.K. Agrawal, JJ said that under Section 319 a person who is not an accused becomes liable to be added where he appears to have committed an offence whereas Section 227 on the other hand, provides that an accused may be discharged if the Judge construes that there is no sufficient ground for the proceedings against him. [Jogendra Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 674, decided on 15.07.15

PUBLIC BODY
Kerala Cricket Association is not a public body for the purposes of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Kerala High Court: The Single Judge bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque, J., while dealing with the question that whether officials of Kerala Cricket Association (KCA) discharge any public duty and, could be treated as 'public servant' for the purposes of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as PC Act), 1988, upheld the challenge to the registration of FIR and investigation against officials of KCA against allegations of corruption in the construction of a cricket stadium. [Karthikeya Varma v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 14875, decided on 15.07. 201
ANTI-COMPETITITVE ACTIVITIES
Penalty imposed on Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce for anti-competitive activities
Competition Commission of India: It is third time when the CCI found the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) in violation of section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002. CCI in the present order imposes penalty on KFCC, Karnataka Television Association (KTVA), and Kannada Film Producers Association (KFPA) for having been involved in the practice of preventing the release/ telecast of dubbed films/ TV-serial in the State of Karnataka. KFCC was found to be engaged into such anti-competitive activities by CCI in Cinergy Independent Film Services Pvt. Ltd v. Telangana Telugu Film Distributors Association, [2013] CCI 23; and in Reliance Big Entertainment v. KFCC, Case No. 25/2010. [Kannada Grahakara Koota v.Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce, (2015) CCI 18, decided on 27-07-2015]

BID RIGGING
Independent decisions do not give benefit of ‘single economic entity’ defence: Four insurance PSUs found guilty of bid rigging
Competition Commission of India: The CCI found insurance PSUs guilty of cartelization qua rigging the tender floated by the Government of Kerala for selecting insurance service provider for implementation of the ‘Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojna’(‘RSBY’). The regulator imposed around 670 crore rupees penalty on the PSUs. [In Re: Cartelization by public sector insurance companies in rigging the bids, (2015) CCI 17, decided on 10/07/2015]
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Question paper along with answer sheet of JIPMER-MBBS Entrance Examination, directed to be disclosed
Central Information Commission (CIC): While coming down heavily upon the officials of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER) for their casual attitude in dealing with RTI applications, CIC directed them to provide the question paper and the answer sheet of JIPMER-MBBS Entrance Examination to the appellant. [S. Winston Samuel v. Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research,2015 SCC OnLine CIC 2378, decided on 20.07.2015
PROMOTION
Previous adverse remarks of dishonesty not “washed off” by subsequent promotion
Rajasthan High Court: While dismissing a petition relating to the promotion of a Grade IV employee, the Court held that the adverse remarks given earlier related to dishonesty and integrity not washed off by subsequent promotion in considering suitability for a post which is based on evaluation of entire record. [Patel Ram Meena v. Reserve Bank of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 1637, decided on 27.07.2015]
 
Top