Landmark Judgements of

Indian History
A.K. Gopalan Case (1950)
• What is AK Gopalan Case?
• Ak Gopalan case
• As we know that the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that: “No person shall
be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by
law”.
• AK Gopalan Case VS State of Madras:
• Ak Gopalan was a communist leader who was detained in the Madras Jail under
Preventive Detention Act,1950 and challenged his detention by stating that his civil
liberty was being hampered as he had the right to equality of law.
• The supreme court examined that he was detained according to the procedure
established by law and rejected his argument. The supreme court at that point of
time believed that each article was separate in the Indian constitution.

• 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.
 Shankari Prasad Case (1951)
• Shankari Prasad Case (1951)
• Introduction
• Fundamental rights, the basic human rights are enforceable. These fundamental rights are protected by
the court of law by issuing writs.
• Though under Article 352 and 356, the fundamental rights or some parts of them can be suspended
during emergency yet they can be amended by Parliament.
• The constitutional validity of first amendment (1951), which curtailed the right to property, was
challenged in Shankari prasad case.

• About the case | Shankari Prasad Case (1951) 

• The case came into light when Land Reforms were being implemented and people affected with these
reforms turned towards HC for justice.
• Some of the HCs were in favour of these land reforms and some were declaring them unconstitutional
which created a confusion among people and the case came to SC.
• The case was based on Article 13.
• Article 13 of the original constitution said that the state shall not make any
law that takes away or abridges the rights given to the citizens in Part III
and any such law made in contravention of this article shall be deemed
void to the extent of contravention. Therefore, the parliament cannot
amend the constitution in a way that takes away the fundamental rights of
the citizens.

• This case dealt with the amendability of Fundamental Rights (the First
Amendment’s validity was challenged). The SC contended that the
Parliament’s power to amend under Article 368 also includes the power to
amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.
 Berubari Union case (1960)
• There was this Thana ‘Berubari’ in Jalpaigudi district of West Bengal. Radcliffe awarded it to India but unfortunately it was not
mentioned in the written text of the award.
• This gave opportunity to Pakistan to claim on Berubari, citing a reason that Berubari falls in the map of Pakistan.
• Dispute continued till Nehru-Noon agreement was signed in 1958 between India and Pakistan. (Feroz shah Noon was the then PM
of Pakistan)
• In the agreement, the territory of Berubari Union was divided and distributed equally between India and Pakistan. (Against the
wishes of West Bengal govt)
• After criticism, Union govt decided to refer matter to the supreme Court. (That’s why case is named In Re Berubari Union )
• Supreme Court said article 3 (c) give parliament a power to diminish state territory but doesn’t give power to cede. Mere exercising
power under article 3 is not sufficient, Parliament has to bring an amendment to the Constitution using power and procedure
mentioned in article 368. (It should be noted that amendment using article 3 can be done by an ordinary majority in the
parliament, but under Article 368, special majority is required)

• This case was regarding the Parliament’s power to transfer the territory of Berubai to Pakistan.
• The Supreme Court examined Article 3 in detail and held that the Parliament cannot make laws under this article in
order to execute the Nehru-Noon agreement. Hence, the 9th Amendment Act was passed to enforce the agreement.
 Golaknath case (1967)
• Brief background of the case :
• The family of Henry and William Golaknath held over 500 acres of farmland in Jalandar, Punjab. In the face of 1953 Punjab Security
and Land Tenures Act, the state government held that the brothers could keep only thirty acres each, a few acres would go to tenants
and the rest was declared surplus.
• This was challenged by Golaknath family in the courts and the case was referred to the Supreme Court in 1965. The family filed a
petition under Article 32 challenging the 1953 Punjab Act on the ground that it denied them their constitutional rights to acquire an
hol property and practice any profession

• The issues involved involved were– whether Amendment is a “law” under the meaning of
article 13(2), and whether fundamental rights can be amended or not.

• The questions in this case were whether amendment is a law; and whether Fundamental Rights can be amended or not.
• SC contented that Fundamental Rights are not amenable to the Parliamentary restriction as stated in Article 13, and that to
amend the Fundamental rights a new Constituent Assembly would be required.
• Also stated that Article 368 gives the procedure to amend the Constitution but does not confer on Parliament the power to
amend the Constitution.
Kesavananda Bharati case (1973
• Brief Facts
• Kesavananda Bharati was the chief pontiff of the Edneer Mutt, a
monastic religious institution located in Kasaragod district, Kerala.
Bharati had some land in the Mutt which he owned.
• The Kerala state government passed the Land Reforms
Amendment Act in 1969. As per this Act, the government could
acquire some of the lands that belonged to the Mutt.
• In March 1970, Bharati moved the Supreme Court (under Section
32 of the Constitution) to enforce the rights that were
guaranteed to him under:
1.Article 25: Right to practice & propagate religion
2.Article 26: Right to manage religious affairs
3.Article 14: Right to equality
4.Article 19(1)(f): Freedom to acquire property
5.Article 31: Compulsory acquisition of property
 Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
• Kesavananda Bharati Case – Judgement
1.The landmark judgement was delivered on 24th April 1973 by a razor-thin majority
of 7:6 wherein the majority held that any provision of the Indian Constitution can be
amended by the Parliament in order to fulfil its socio-economic obligations that were
guaranteed to the citizens as given in the Preamble, provided that such amendment did
not change the Constitution’s basic structure. The minority, however, in their dissenting
opinion, were wary of giving the Parliament unlimited amending power.

• This judgement defined the basic structure of the Constitution. The SC held that although
no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the Parliament’s
amending power, the “basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a
constitutional amendment.”
• This is the basis in Indian law in which the judiciary can strike down any amendment
passed by Parliament that is in conflict with the basic structure of the Constitution.
Maneka Gandhi case (1978)
• Facts Of The Case | Maneka Gandhi case (1978)
• The factual summary of this case is as follows-
• Maneka Gandhi was issued a passport on 1/06/1976 under the Passport Act 1967.
The regional passport officer, New Delhi, issued a letter dated 2/7/1977 addressed to
Maneka Gandhi, in which she was asked to surrender her passport under
section 10(3)(c)of the Act in public interest, within 7 days from the date of receipt of
the letter.
• Maneka Gandhi immediately wrote a letter to the Regional Passport officer, New
Delhi seeking in return a copy of the statement of reasons for such order. However,
the government of India, Ministry of External Affairs refused to produce any such
reason in the interest of general public.

• Issues Of The Case | Maneka Gandhi case (1978)

• The main issues of this case were as follows-
• Whether right to go Abroad is a part of right to personal liberty under Article 21.
• Whether the Passport Act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as required by Article 21 before
depriving a person from the right guaranteed under the said article.
• Whether section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14,19(1) (a) and 21
of the constitution.
• Whether the impugned order of the Regional passport officer is in contravention of
the principle of natural justice.
 Maneka Gandhi case (1978)
• A main issue in this case was whether the right to go abroad is
a part of the Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21. The SC
held that it is included in the Right to Personal Liberty.
• The SC also ruled that the mere existence of an enabling law
was not enough to restrain personal liberty. Such a law must
also be “just, fair and reasonable.”
 Minerva Mills case (1980)
• Minerva mill Case explained
• Minerva Mills case
• Minerva Mills case 1980 was a one of the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court of India. It strengthened the ‘Doctrine of Basic
Structure’ which was propounded by the court in the historic 
• Issue
• Constitutional Validity of 42nd Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1976
• Background | Minerva Mills case (1980)
• The Parliament in order to serve general public interest came up with a noble solution by reconstructing bad assets of companies
having importance to the general public. Therefore, in accordance with the achievement of the said solution the Parliament enacted
The sick textile undertakings (taking over of management) Act, 1974 [Act no. 57 of 1974] on December 24, 1974.
• Minerva Mills was a textile industry in the State of Karnataka engaged in the mass production of silk clothes and provided market
to the general public.
• The Central Govt. was suspicious that company fulfilled the criteria to be classified as a sick industry. Therefore, the Central Govt.
in 1970 appointed a committee u/s 15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 for making a full detailed report
analyzing the affairs of Minerva Mills.
• Relying on the Committee’s report, on October 19, 1971 the Central govt. empowered National Textile Corporation Limited (a body
under the 1951 act) to take over the management of Minerva Mills u/s 18A of the 1951 act.
 Minerva Mills case (1980)
• This case again strengthens the Basic Structure doctrine. The
judgement struck down 2 changes made to the Constitution by
the 42nd Amendment Act 1976, declaring them to be violative
of the basic structure.
• The judgement makes it clear that the Constitution, and not the
Parliament is supreme.
Shah Bano Begum case
• Background
• Mohd Ahmed Khan (the appealing party) who was a lawyer by profession,
married to Shah Bano Begum (the respondent) in 1932, had three sons and
two daughters from this marriage.
• In 1975, when Shah Bano’s age was 62 years, she was disowned by her
spouse and was tossed out from her marital home together with her
children.
• In 1978, she filed an appeal in the presence of Judicial Magistrate of Indore,
because she was abandoned from the maintenance of Rs. 200 per month,
which was guaranteed to be provided by him. She demanded Rs. 500 per
month as maintenance.
• Subsequently, the husband gave her irrevocable triple talaq on November
6th, 1978, and used it as a defence to not pay maintenance.  The magistrate,
in August 1979, directed the husband to pay an entirety of Rs 25 per month
as maintenance.
• Shah Bano in July 1908 made a plea to the High Court of M.P, to change
the sum of maintenance to Rs. 179 each month, and high court increased
the maintenance to the said amount i.e. Rs. 179 per month.
• The same was challenged by the spouse within the Supreme Court as a
special leave petition to the High court’s decision.
 Shah Bano Begum case (1985)
• Milestone case for Muslim women’s fight for rights. The SC
upheld the right to alimony for a Muslim woman and said that
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is applicable to all
citizens irrespective of their religion.
• This set off a political controversy and the government of the
day overturned this judgement by passing the Muslim Women
(Protection on Divorce Act), 1986, according to which alimony
need be given only during the iddat period (in tune with the
Muslim personal law).
 Indra Sawhney and Union of India (1992)
• On January 1, 1973 the JANATA Government headed By the Prime Minister Sri MORARJI DESAI appointed the
second Backward Classes Commission under Article 340 of the Constitution under the chairmanship of Sri B.P.
Mandal (MP) to investigate the Socially & Educationally Backward Classes within the territory of INDIA &
recommended steps to be taken for their advancement including the necessary provision which are to be required
to be made for them for the upliftment of their status by giving equal opportunity in the public employment.
• The commission submitted its report on December, 1980 in this report the commission identified about 3743
caste: as socially & educationally backward classes recommended for reservation of 27% in Government jobs.
• In the meantime due to internal disturbance within the party the GOVT. collapsed & by thus it couldn’t implement
the recommendations made by MANDAL COMMISSIONS after that the CONGRESS GOVT. headed by the Prime
Minister Smt. INDIRA GANDHI came to the power at centre. But she didn’t implement the MANDAL
COMMISSION’S report till 1989. In 1989 the CONGRESS GOVT. toppled due to the defeat of the general election.
• After winning that election JANATA DAL again came to the power & decided to implement the report of the
commission. After that then Prime Minister V.P.SINGH issued office of memorandum on AUGUST 13, 1990 &
reserved 27% seats for the Socially & Backward classes.
• This cause effect in civil disturbance throughout the INDIA. From various places anti Reservation movement
rocked the nation for 3 months. It results a huge loss of persons & property.
• A writ petition was filed from the BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE SUPREME COURT.Challenging the validity of
Office of Memorandum issued by the GOVT.
Indra Sawhney and Union of India (1992)
• SC examined the scope and extent of Article 16(4), which
provides for the reservation of jobs in favour of backward
classes. It upheld the constitutional validity of 27% reservation
for the OBCs with certain conditions (like creamy layer
exclusion, no reservation in promotion, total reserved quota
should not exceed 50%, etc.)
 S. R. Bommai case (1994)
• In this judgement, the SC tried to curb the blatant misuse of 
Article 356 (regarding the imposition of President’s Rule on
states).
• Who was S.R. Bommai?
• S.R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of the Janata Dal government in Karnataka between August 13,
1988 and April 21, 1989. His government was dismissed on April 21, 1989 under Article 356 of the
Constitution and President’s Rule was imposed, in what was then a mostly common mode to keep
Opposition parties at bay.
• The dismissal was on grounds that the Bommai government had lost majority following large-scale
defections engineered by several party leaders of the day. Then Governor P. Venkatasubbaiah
refused to give Bommai an opportunity to test his majority in the Assembly despite the latter
presenting him with a copy of the resolution passed by the Janata Dal Legislature Party.
• What happened then?
• Bommai went to court against the Governor’s decision to recommend President’s Rule. First he moved the Karnataka High
Court, which dismissed his writ petition. Then he moved the Supreme Court.

• What did the Supreme Court do?

• The case, which would go on to become one of the most cited whenever hung Assemblies were returned, and parties
scrambled to for a government, took almost five years to see a logical conclusion. On March 11, 1994, a nine-judge
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court issued the historic order, which in a way put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of
State governments under Article 356 by spelling out restrictions.

• What did the judgement say?

• The verdict concluded that the power of the President to dismiss a State government is not absolute. The verdict said the
President should exercise the power only after his proclamation (imposing his/her rule) is approved by both Houses of
Parliament.
• Till then, the Court said, the President can only suspend the Legislative Assembly by suspending the provisions of
Constitution relating to the Legislative Assembly.
• “The dissolution of Legislative Assembly is not a matter of course. It should be resorted to only where it is found necessary for
achieving the purposes of the Proclamation,” the Court said.
 Vishaka and State of Rajasthan (1997)
• Background | Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan (1997) 
• Bhanwari Devi was a saathin (social worker) for the Women’s Development Programme in Bhateri (Rajasthan,
India), working on a campaign to end child marriage.
• As part of her job, she worked directly with families to prevent the marriages and report cases to the police when
urgent follow-up action was needed. This included one particular case, where Bhanwari reported a family from
the Gujjar community to the police. They were arranging the marriage of a one-year old infant.
• Upset with the intervention, the family rebelled against Bhanwari. After attempting to ostracise her from her
community, five men – Ramsukh Gujjar, Ram Karan Gujjar, Gyarsa Gujjar, Badri Gukkar and Shravan Sharma –
went to her home. Her husband was attacked and restrained, while she was gang-raped.
• Bhanwari and her husband went to the police for help. No thorough investigation was launched and police
delayed taking statements regarding what had happened.
• Before the police told her to return home, she was asked to leave her skirt behind as evidence. Bhanwari was also
forced to seek medical attention in Janipur. When she arrived, the doctor only recorded her age – leaving out any
reference to rape in his report. Fifty-two hours passed before a medical examination was conducted.
Vishaka and State of Rajasthan (1997)
• This case dealt with sexual
harassment at the workplace. In the
judgement, the SC gave a set of
guidelines for employers – as well as
other responsible persons or
institutions – to immediately ensure
the prevention of sexual harassment.
• These are called ‘Vishaka Guidelines’.
These were to be considered law until
appropriate legislation was enacted.
Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011)
• Background | Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011)
• Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug was a nurse in the King Edwards
Memorial Hospital in Mumbai. In November 1973, she was assaulted
by ward boy, Sohanlal Bhartha Valmiki, of the same hospital while
changing her clothes in the hospital basement. Valmiki strangulated
Shanbaug with a dog chain around her neck.
• The attack cut off oxygen supply from her brain leaving her blind, deaf,
paralysed and in a vegetative state for the next 42 years.
• From the day of the assault till the day she died on May 18, 2015, Aruna
could only survive on mashed food. She could not move her hands or
legs, could not talk or perform the basic functions of a human being.
• In 1974, Valmiki was charged with attempted murder and for robbing
Aruna’s earrings, but not for rape. The police did not take into account
that she was sodomized. A trial court sentenced Valmiki seven years
imprisonment. This was reduced to six years because he had already
served a year in lock up. Valmiki walked out of jail in 1980 and still
claims he did not rape Shanbaug.
 Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011)
• The SC ruled that individuals had a right to die with dignity, allowing
passive euthanasia with guidelines. The need to reform India’s laws on
euthanasia was triggered by the tragic case of Aruna Shanbaug who
lay in a vegetative state (blind, paralysed and deaf) for 42 years.
• Current legal status of Euthanasia in India
• Prior to Aruna Shanbaug case both active and passive Euthanasia was not allowed in India. In Aruna
Shanbaug case the Supreme Court allowed passive Euthanasia, However it did not grant permission for Active
Euthanasia.
• Still there is no law made by parliament in India about Euthanasia.  The court also clarified that until
Parliament enacts a law, its judgment on active and passive euthanasia will be in force.
• International status regarding Euthanasia
• In April 2002, the Netherland became the 1st country to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. It imposed a
strict set of conditions: the patient must be suffering unbearable pain, their illness must be incurable, and the
demand must be made in “full consciousness” by the patient
Triple Talaq Judgement (2016)
• Triple Talaq Judgement (2016)
• Introduction
• Shayara Bano, a 35-year-old woman, challenged the practice in 2016, a
year after her husband of 15 years divorced her via triple talaq.
• Petitions of four other Muslim women – Afreen Rehman, Gulshan
Parveen, Ishrat Jahan and Atiya Sabri – were tagged with Bano’s plea.
• Some Muslim groups see the issue as a matter of religious right while
others, including the Centre, termed it unconstitutional.
• Background
• Shayara Bano was married to Rizwan Ahmed for 15 years. In 2016, he
divorced her through instantaneous triple talaq (talaq -e bidat). She filed
a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court asking it to hold three practices –
talaq-e-bidat, polygamy, nikah-halala – unconstitutional as they violate
Articles 14, 15, 21, 25 of the Constitution.
• On 16th February 2017, the Court asked Shayara Bano, the Union of
India, various women’ rights bodies, and the All India Muslim Personal
Law Board (AIMPLB) to give written submissions on the issue of talaq-e-
bidat, nikah-halala and polygamy.
 Triple Talaq Judgement (2016)
• What is Talaq-e- bidat , Nikah Halala and Polygamy?
• Talaq-e- bidat is a practise which gives a man the right to divorce his wife by uttering ‘talaq’ three
times in one sitting without his wife’s consent.
• Nikah Halala is a practise where a divorced woman who wants to remarry her husband would have
to marry and obtain a divorce, from a second husband before she can go back to her first husband.
• Polygamy is a practice which allows Muslim men to have more than one wife.

• The SC outlawed the backward practice of instant ‘triple talaq’, which permitted Muslim
men to unilaterally end their marriages by uttering the word “talaq” three times without
making any provision for maintenance or alimony. Read about the Triple Talaq Bill, 2019.