List of landmark court decisions in India

Last updated

Landmark court decisions in India substantially change the interpretation of existing law. Such a landmark decision may settle the law in more than one way. In present-day common law legal systems it may do so by: [1] [2]

Contents

In India, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the Supreme Court of India, which is the highest judicial body in India. High courts of India may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case or if it adopts the holding of the lower court.

Individual rights

Name of the caseYearJudgement
Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras [3] 1950Ban on dissenting media under the Section 9 (1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 struck down as unconstitutional.
This in-turn led to formulation of the 1st amendment of the Constitution of India which clarified public order can form grounds for reasonable restrictions of free speech.
Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh [4] 1977Right to propagate religion does not include the right to convert by force, fraud or allurement.
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum [5] 1985Upheld the payment of maintenance and alimony to Shah Bano and hence to Muslim women by Muslim Husbands.
The Rajiv Gandhi ministry passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 which diluted this judgement and restricted the right to maintenance and alimony which was heavily criticized as a move to appease Muslims opposing the judgement. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] The Supreme court later through Danial Latifi v. Union of India case and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan upheld the Shah Bano judgement effectively nullifying the Muslim Women Act 1986.
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India [12] 2014Recognised transgender as 'third gender' in law and affirmed that the fundamental rights granted under the Constitution of India will be equally applicable to them.
ABC v. The State (NCT of Delhi) [13] 2015Unwed woman belonging to the Christian faith can become a legal guardian of her child without the father's consent.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [14] 2015Struck down restrictions on online speech introduced in Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [15]

or The Right to Privacy verdict

2017 Right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India thus overruling ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla. [16]
This judgement thus overruled the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976): [17] A person's right to not be unlawfully detained (i.e. habeas corpus) can be suspended during emergency.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [18] 2018Decriminalisation of acts of Oral sex and Anal sex which effectively decriminalised Homosexual sex.
This judgement thus overruled Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013): [19] Upheld and reinstated the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalising Anal sex
This judgement thus overruled Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009): [20] Decriminalization of homosexual acts involving consenting adults throughout India.
Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal [21] 2022Atypical families and same-sex couples are deserving of equal protection under law and benefits available under social welfare legislation.
Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India or EWS Reservation Case.2022The legality of the 103rd Amendment of the Constitution, which provides reservation in educational institutes as well as in jobs for the economically weaker sections, was upheld.
Supriyo v. Union of India 2023The right to marry is a statutory right, not a constitutional right. Therefore, only Parliament can recognize the marriage between non-heterosexual couples.

Criminal law

Name of the caseYearJudgement
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [22] 1978A 'procedure' under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be arbitrary, unfair, oppressive, or unreasonable.

A law depriving a person of 'personal liberty' must not violate any of the Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

This judgement thus overruled A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) [23] Court upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, with the exception of Section 14, which restricted disclosure of the grounds of detention ,which was deemed unconstitutional.
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan [24] 1997Establishment of the Vishakha Guidelines to handle sexual harassments of women at workplace until sufficient legislature is implemented for the purpose.
This ruling was superseded by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013
Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh [25] 2006A person is not convictable under Section 376 2e (Raping a pregnant women) if he had certain knowledge of the fact that the victim is pregnant. The knowledge of the fact must be proven to certainty and not possibility. Consequently, in this case, the accused was sentenced under Section 376 (1), and was sentenced to milder punishment.
Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar [26]

or TheArnesh Kumar Guidelines

2014Arrests should be an exception, in cases where the punishment is less than seven years of imprisonment. [27]

Constitutional jurisprudence

The Supreme Court of India, which is the highest judicial body in India, has decided many leading cases of Constitutional jurisprudence, establishing Constitution Benches for hearing the same. Given below are a list of some leading cases.

Name of caseYearJudgement
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan [28] 1951Struck down the Communal G.O. of 1927 by the Madras government rejecting caste-based reservations in government jobs and college seats.
This in-turn led to formulation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution which clarified that right to equality does not bar the enactment of laws which provide "special consideration" for weaker sections of society.
Golaknath v. State Of Punjab [29] 1967Struck down Parliament's power to amend all parts of the Constitution, including Part III related to Fundamental Rights. The judgement left Parliament with no power to curtail Fundamental Rights.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [30] 1973Formally outlined and adopted the Basic structure doctrine.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India [31] 1980Added clarifications about the Basic Structure doctrine. Court ruled that the power of the parliament to amend the constitution is limited by the constitution. Hence the parliament cannot exercise this limited power to grant itself an unlimited power.
Olga Tellis Vs. BMC [32] 1985The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to livelihood.
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka [33] 1992Established right to education as an integral part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21.
Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India [34] 1992Upheld that caste was an acceptable indicator of backwardness.
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India [35] 1994Court discussed at length provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India (President's Rule) and related issues. This helped put an end to the arbitrary impositions seen until then.
Sarla Mudgal, & others. v. Union of India [36] 1995Principles against the practice of solemnizing second marriage by conversion to Islam, with first marriage not being dissolved. It highlighted the need for a uniform civil code.
Three Judges Cases
1981S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [37]

Established the Collegium system of the Indian Judicial System.

1993Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India [38]

Struck down the 99th Amendment of the Constitution of India and the proposal of the National Judicial Appointments Commission.

1998In re Special reference 1 [39]

Reply by the Chief Justice of India to the questions raised by President of India K. R. Narayanan regarding the Collegium system.

M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [40] 1996Established that the Public trust doctrine applied in India.
Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India [41] 2021Rejected appeals to provide relief to Illegal Rohingya immigrants from deportation.

Policy and Administration

Name of the caseYearJudgement
T. S. R. Subramanian v. Union of India [42] 2013Officers of the IAS, other All India Services and other civil servants are not bound to follow oral directives, as they "undermine credibility".
Lily Thomas v. Union of India along with Lok Prahari v. Union of India [43] 2013 MP, MLA/MLC who is convicted of a crime and given a minimum of two years', loses membership of the House with immediate effect.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India [44] 2018Chief Minister and not the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi the executive head of the National Capital Territory (NCT) government
This overruled the Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India in the Delhi High Court (2016) : The Lt Governor of Delhi exercised complete control of all matters regarding National Capital Territory of Delhi.

Established new tests and regulations

Name of the caseYearJudgement
RG Anand v. Deluxe Films [45] 1978Copyright protection does not extend to mere ideas. Where theme is same but presented differently, there can be no question of infringement.
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib [46] 1981Laid down a test to determine whether an individual, corporation, or society was an instrumentality or agency of the government.
Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. [47] 2004The Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999 is applicable to the regulation of domain names.
Swasthya Adhikar Manch v. Union of India [48] 2013Laid down the regulations regarding Clinical trials held by Contract research organizations to protect participants.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of India</span> Highest judicial body in India

The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States.

<i>Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum</i> Maintenance lawsuit in India

Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum [1985], commonly referred to as the Shah Bano case, was a controversial maintenance lawsuit in India, in which the Supreme Court delivered a judgment favouring maintenance given to an aggrieved divorced Muslim woman. Then the Congress government enacted a law with its most controversial aspect being the right to maintenance for the period of iddat after the divorce, and shifting the onus of maintaining her to her relatives or the Waqf Board. It was seen as discriminatory as it denied right to basic maintenance available to Muslim women under secular law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in India</span> Death penalty in India, its states and union territories

Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution per Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'.

Section 377 of the British colonial penal code criminalized all sexual acts "against the order of nature". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in oral and anal sex along with homosexual activity. As per Supreme Court Judgement since 2018, Indian Penal Code Section 377 is used to convict non-consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize third gender people, such as the apwint in Myanmar. In 2018, then British Prime Minister Theresa May acknowledged how the legacies of British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and death.

The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Y. V. Chandrachud</span> 16th Chief Justice Of India

Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud was an Indian jurist who served as the 16th Chief Justice of India, serving from 22 February 1978 to the day he retired on 11 July 1985. Born in Pune in the Bombay Presidency, he was first appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court of India on 28 August 1972 and is the longest-serving Chief Justice in India's history at 7 years and 4 months. His nickname was Iron Hands after his well-regarded unwillingness to let anything slip past him.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud</span> Chief Justice of India

Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud is an Indian jurist, who is the 50th and Current Chief Justice of India serving since November 2022. He was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of India in May 2016. He has also previously served as the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court from 2013 to 2016 and as a judge of the Bombay High Court from 2000 to 2013. He is also a former executive chairperson (ex officio) of the National Legal Services Authority.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. S. Verma</span> 27th Chief Justice of India

Jagdish Sharan Verma was an Indian jurist who served as the 27th Chief Justice of India from 25 March 1997 to 18 January 1998. He was the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission from 1999 to 2003, and chairman of the Justice Verma Committee Report on Amendments to Criminal Law after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. He remains one of India's most highly regarded Chief Justices and eminent jurists in its history.

<i>Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009) is a landmark Indian case decided by a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that treating consensual homosexual sex between adults as a crime is a violation of fundamental rights protected by India's Constitution. The verdict resulted in the decriminalization of homosexual acts involving consenting adults throughout India. This was later overturned by the Supreme Court of India in Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation, in which a 2 judge bench reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. However, even that was overturned by a 5 judge bench in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India in 2018, decriminalizing homosexuality once again.

Chandramauli Kumar Prasad is the Chairman of the Press Council of India. Before his appointment, he served as a judge of the Supreme Court of India from 8 February 2010 to 14 July 2014.<ref>"Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad". Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original on 30 November 2010. Retrieved 12 April 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Code of Criminal Procedure (India)</span> Erstwhile Code of Criminal Law of India

The Code of Criminal Procedure commonly called Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was the main legislation on procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India. It was enacted in 1973 and came into force on 1 April 1974. It provides the machinery for the investigation of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of the accused person and the determination of punishment of the guilty. It also deals with public nuisance, prevention of offences and maintenance of wife, child and parents.

The Indian judiciary has made judgments related to reservations, a system of affirmative action that provides for disadvantaged groups. These groups are primarily Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and from 1987 extended to Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Some of the court judgements have been modified by the Indian parliament.

The Indian Judicial Collegium system, where existing judges appoint judges to the nation's constitutional courts, has its genesis in, and continued basis resting on, three of its own judgments made by Supreme Court judges ,which are collectively known as the Three Judges Cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ouster clause</span> Type of clause in legislation

An ouster clause or privative clause is, in countries with common law legal systems, a clause or provision included in a piece of legislation by a legislative body to exclude judicial review of acts and decisions of the executive by stripping the courts of their supervisory judicial function. According to the doctrine of the separation of powers, one of the important functions of the judiciary is to keep the executive in check by ensuring that its acts comply with the law, including, where applicable, the constitution. Ouster clauses prevent courts from carrying out this function, but may be justified on the ground that they preserve the powers of the executive and promote the finality of its acts and decisions.

<i>Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Suresh Kumar Koushal &Anr. v. NAZ Foundation &Ors.(2013) is a case in which a 2 judge Supreme Court bench consisting of G. S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadhaya overturned the Delhi High Court case Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court of India decided to revisit this judgement after several curative petitions were filed against it, in 2017. Thereby in 2018, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, a 5 judge bench of the Supreme Court overturned this judgement, decriminalizing homosexuality. Portions of Section 377 relating to sex with minors, non-consensual sexual acts such as rape, and bestiality remain in force.

Judicial review in India is a process by which the Supreme Court and the High Courts of India examine, determine and invalidate the Executive or Legislative actions inconsistent with the Constitution of India. The word judicial review finds no mention in the Constitution of India but The Constitution of India implicitly provides for judicial review through Articles 13, 32 and through 136, 142 and 226.

<i>Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Navtej Singh Johar &Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (2018) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.

S. Muralidhar is an Indian Judge. He is former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Delhi High Court.

<i>Arnesh Kumar Guidelines</i> Indian Supreme Court ruling of 2014

Arnesh Kumar Guidelines or Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014) is a landmark judgement of the Indian Supreme Court, stating arrests should be an exception, in cases where the punishment is less than seven years of imprisonment. The guidelines asked the police to determine whether an arrest was necessary under the provisions of Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Police officers have a responsibility to guarantee that the principles established by the Supreme Court in its numerous decisions are followed by the investigating officers. Before authorising further detention, the judicial magistrate must read the police officer's report and make sure they are satisfied.

References

  1. ↑ Meaning of leading case in the English Dictionary
  2. ↑ A. W. B. Simpson, Leading Cases in the Common Law, Clarendon Press, 1996
  3. ↑ Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras [1950] INSC 16 (26 May 1950), S.C.(India)
  4. ↑ Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1977] INSC 13 (17 January 1977), S.C.(India)
  5. ↑ Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum [1985] INSC 99 (23 April 1985), S.C.(India)
  6. ↑ Anand, Utkarsh (Mar 26, 2010). "From Shah Bano to Salma". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 3 May 2014. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  7. ↑ Rashid Faisal, Malik. "The ghost of Shah Bano". Business & Economy. Archived from the original on 3 May 2014. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  8. ↑ Ali, Subhashini (Dec 26, 2005). "1985: Shah Bano case". India Today . Archived from the original on May 3, 2014. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  9. ↑ Jethmalani, Ram (29 April 2012). "Cementing of dynastic democracy". The Sunday Guardian. Archived from the original on May 2, 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  10. ↑ Dougal, Sundeep (23 August 2004). "What If Rajiv Hadn't Caved In To The Zealots?". Outlook India. Archived from the original on May 3, 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  11. ↑ Makarand R Paranjape (2009). Altered Destinations: Self, Society, and Nation in India. Anthem Press. p. 50. ISBN   978-1-84331-797-5.
  12. ↑ National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India [2014] INSC 282 (15 April 2014), S.C.(India)
  13. ↑ ABC v. The State (NCT of Delhi) [2015] INSC 476 (6 July 2015), S.C.(India)
  14. ↑ Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [2015] INSC 251 (24 March 2015), S.C.(India)
  15. ↑ Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India [2017] INSC 689 (24 August 2017), S.C.(India)
  16. ↑ "Supreme Court rights old judicial wrongs in landmark Right to Privacy verdict, shows State its rightful place". Firstpost. 29 August 2017. Retrieved 31 December 2021.
  17. ↑ ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla [1976] AIR 1207 (28 April 1976), S.C. (India)
  18. ↑ Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [2018] INSC 746 (6 June 2018), S.C.(India)
  19. ↑ Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation [2013] INSC 1096 (11 December 2013), S.C.(India)
  20. ↑ Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [2009] INSC 2450 (2 July 2009), S.C.(India)
  21. ↑ Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal [2022] INSC 802 (16 August 2022), S.C.(India)
  22. ↑ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] INSC 16 (25 January 1978), S.C.(India)
  23. ↑ A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras [1950] INSC 14 (19 May 1950), S.C.(India)
  24. ↑ Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan [1997] INSC 665 (13 August 1997), S.C.(India)
  25. ↑ Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2006] INSC 297 (11 May 2006), S.C.(India)
  26. ↑ Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar [2014] INSC 495 (2 July 2014), S.C.(India)
  27. ↑ James, Sebin (21 November 2021). "Police Officials To Face Action If Arrest Procedure Under Sec 41A CrPC & 'Arnesh Kumar' Guidelines Are Violated : Telangana High Court". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 21 November 2021.
  28. ↑ State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan [1951] INSC 25 (9 April 1951), S.C.(India)
  29. ↑ Golaknath v. State Of Punjab [1967] INSC 45 (27 February 1967), S.C.(India)
  30. ↑ Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [1973] INSC 258 (24 April 1973), S.C.(India)
  31. ↑ Minerva Mills v. Union of India [1980] INSC 141 (31 July 1980), S.C.(India)
  32. ↑ Olga Tellis Vs. BMC [1985] INSC 155 (10 July 1985), S.C.(India)
  33. ↑ Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka [1992] INSC 184 (30 July 1992), S.C.(India)
  34. ↑ Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India [1992] AIR 1993 SC 477 (16 December 1992), S.C. (India)
  35. ↑ S. R. Bommai v. Union of India [1994] INSC 173 (11 March 1994), S.C.(India)
  36. ↑ Sarla Mudgal, & others. v. Union of India [1995] INSC 269 (10 May 1995), S.C.(India)
  37. ↑ S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [1981] AIR 1982 SC 149 (30 December 1981), S.C. (India)
  38. ↑ Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India [1993] 4 SCC 441 (6 October 1993), S.C. (India)
  39. ↑ In re Special reference 1 [1998] AIR 1999 SC 1 (28 October 1998), S.C. (India)
  40. ↑ M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [1996] INSC 1608 (13 December 1996), S.C.(India)
  41. ↑ Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India [2021] INSC 127 (8 April 2021), S.C.(India)
  42. ↑ T. S. R. Subramanian v. Union of India [2013] INSC 1003 (31 October 2013), S.C.(India)
  43. ↑ Lily Thomas v. Union of India [2013] INSC 674 (10 July 2013), S.C.(India)
  44. ↑ Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India [2018] INSC 541 (4 July 2018), S.C.(India)
  45. ↑ RG Anand v. Deluxe Films [1978] INSC 140 (18 August 1978), S.C.(India)
  46. ↑ Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib [1980] INSC 219 (13 November 1980), S.C.(India)
  47. ↑ Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. [2004] 3 AWC 2366 SC (6 May 2004), S.C. (India)
  48. ↑ Swasthya Adhikar Manch v. Union of India [1978] INSC 140 (18 August 1978), S.C.(India)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.