Leading / Important Cases

Landmark judicial decisions changed the Constitution as well as everyday life. Their impact still
echoes.
A.K.Gopalan Vs. State of Madras 1950
Meaning and scope of life and personal liberty under Article 21.
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 wifes
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 Indias 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 citizens 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.
Bacchan Singh Vs. State Of Panjab 1982
Regarding Validity Of Capital Punishment.But The Reason Should Be Given in Writing.
Macchi Singh Vs. Union Of India 1983
Person Punished With Capital Punishment Belongs to Rear Of The Rarest.
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.
Mohammad Ahmad Khan Vs. Shahbano Begam 1985
Necessity Of Govt. Initiative In Regarding Of Uniform Civil Code.
The case, related to the issue of Muslim personal law, caused a furore as the court awarded
Shah Bano amaintenance allowance after divorce.
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. Union Of India 1988
Regarding the pardoning Power Of President:
A.R. Anutule Vs. S.R. Nayak 1988
The Nature Of Accessing limits Of Jurisdiction Of The Court Is Legal Right, so
Providing/withdrawing Right to Appeal Is Aiso LegaL right.
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.

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. Stephens College Vs University of Delhi 1992
The identity of St. Stephens 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.
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.
Roopa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra 2002
On A.137, permit hearing after review of final judgement made by sc.
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.
P.A Enaamdaar Vs. State Of Maharashtra 2005
Education is a Fundamental Right Under A. 19(g), and related to rights of non aided minorities
educational institutions.
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.

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.
M. Nagraaj Vs. Union Of India 2006
In The Light Of A.14 Govt. is Not Bound To Provide Reservation for sc/st in Promotion.
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.
I.R Koyelho Vs. State Of Tamilnadu 2007
Its Right of Judiciary To Review Those Act Which Destroy Basic Structure Of Constitution Evan
If Such Act Is Subject Of 9th Schedule.
Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. Union Of India 2008
Validated 93rd amendment related to 27% reservation of OBC in higher educational institution.
Malay KUmar Gagauly Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukharji 2009
Voluntarily in providing basic facilities to the patient is considered as medical negligence.
Bhavani Prasad Jena Vs. Woman Commission of State of Odisha 2010
DNA testing should be allowed when there is the prima facie evidence and in addition of it
extreme necessity is proved.
CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyaya 2011
Right to information explained examinee right include inspection of his checked answer sheet.
Aruna Ramchandran Shanbag Vs. Union Of India 2011
Direction for euthanasia
Center for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union OF India 2011
Government is bound to act upon the principle of equality and public trust and must ensure that
there is no conflict in public interest while distributing natural resources.
Society Of Unaided Private School Of Rajasthan Vs. Union Of India 2012
Right of compulsory and free education Act 2009 is constitutionally valid and as above
mentioned this Act is not applied upon unaided minority school.
Sangeet Vs. Government Of Haryana 2013
It is undoubtedly unprohibited that in offence compatible with capital punishment, on ground
of Huge uncertainty, life imprisonment may be given.(CAPITAL PUNISHMENT vs. LIFE
IMPRISONMENT)
************************************************************************************************************
 Negotiable
Instruments Act
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129
In this case, the Supreme Court had held that a cheque bouncing case can be filed only in a
court which has the territorial jurisdiction over the place where the cheque is dishonoured by the
bank on which it is drawn.

Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra

(after Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129)
Bombay HC decision laid down that the payee of a multi-city cheque, which is payable at par in
all branches of the bank, can choose the place where he wants to present the cheque, and
thereafter when it is sent for clearing to the nearest branch of the bank in that city, the court
having jurisdiction over that clearing branch has the territorial jurisdiction of the cheque
bouncing case.
the above decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court vide SLP
(Criminal) No. 7251 of 2014. This SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court as withdrawn on
20 March 2015. This meant that the Bombay High Court decision had become final
Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015
come into force with effect from 15 June 2015.
The above Supreme Court judgment and the above Bombay High Court judgment (and, also, all
other judgments) are now of no consequence since this Ordinance supersedes them.

new sub-section (2) has been inserted in Section 142, which now lays down as under:

(2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose
local jurisdiction,

(a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the
payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or

(b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course otherwise
through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is
situated.
Explanation.For the purposes of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any
branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to
have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as
the case may be, maintains the account.

Now a cheque bouncing case can be filed only in the court at the place where the bank in
which the payee has account, is located
************************************************************************************************************

Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India-Notification published by Union Cabinet on 4.3.2014 to
include Jats Community in Central List of Backward Classes for various states is challenged.
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Fali Nariman

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 274 of 2014

Supreme Court in this case held that the notification bearing No.63 dated 4/3/2014 where Jats
wereincluded in the Central List of Other Backward Classes (OBC) for States of Bihar, Gujarat,
Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, NCT of Delhi, Bhartput and Dholpur Districts of
Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand are set aside and quashed by the apex court for
various reasons.
Prem Mardi Vs. Union of India, 2015 (Adiwasi does not mean SC or ST)
However that is not my understanding of the word adivasi. As per my understanding, adivasi
connotes aboriginal people and not people falling in the definition of scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India. Constitution of India in
Hindi and do not find the word adivasi being used in Articles 341, 342 and 366 in place of the
word tribe. The word used for the word tribe therein is janjati. It, even otherwise, as per the
dictionary is the Hindi equivalent of tribe.