Landmark Cases on Constitution of India 2023 | Important Judgments on Constitution of India. When you start preparing for Judiciary Examination, You must have prepared for Important Judgments of Constitution of India and Latest Landmark Judgments of Constitution of India. It is that important because in every Judiciary Exam approx out of 100 marks near about 10 to 15 marks consists of Judgments.
Landmark Cases on Constitution of India
Here is the list of Landmark Judgment of Constitution of India Part 1
Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerela1986
The Court held that the right of free speech and expression also includes the right to remain silent and that only standing for the national anthem showed proper respect.
Rajbala v State of Haryana 2015
The constitutionality of the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act 2015 was upheld. The Act disbarred persons in Haryana from the right to contest panchayat elections on the basis of certain restrictions like educational qualifications, arrears clause, etc.
K. Veeraswami v Union of India 1991
No FIR against a HC/SC judge unless President consults CJI and CJI allows it.
Delhi Judicial Service Association v/s State of Gujarat 1991
Guidelines against arrest of a judicial officer; permission of District Judge or HC judge required.
S.P. Gupta v UOI (First Judges case) 1981
Consultation under A.124 does not mean concurrence.
Supreme Court Advocates on Record v UOI (Second Judges case) 1993
Consultation under A.124 does not mean concurrence; Collegium system evolved (1+ 2 = CJI + Two senior-most judges)
In Re Presidential Reference 1998 (Third Judges case)
Collegium means– CJI + 4 senior-most judges.
Supreme Court Advocates on Record v UOI (Fourth Judges case) 2015
Primacy of the CJI in judicial appointments upheld. National Appointments Judicial Commission Act struck down as unconstitutional. 99th Amendment to the Constitution struck down.
Naresh Mirajkar v State of Maharashtra 1966
Judiciary a State while performing administrative functions; not while performing judicial functions.
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950)
- Freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas that can only be ensured by circulation.
- The order violates article 19(1)(a).
- The rule of severability was applied to section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949.
A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
- Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (exception-section 14) was held valid.
- Section 14 restricted disclosure of the grounds of detention.
- ‘Procedure Established by Law’ does NOT include ‘Due Process of Law’.
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951)
- 1st Constitutional Amendment is valid.
- Constitutional Amendment is not ‘Law’ for Article 13.
- Differences laid down between ‘Ordinary Law’ and ‘Constitutional Amendment.’
The Berubari Union Case (1960)
- Parliament cannot make law under Article 3 to implement the Nehru-Noon agreement.
- The preamble is NOT a part of the Constitution.
- This led to the 9th constitutional Amendment.
Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1964)
- Section 292 of IPC, which restricted the sale of obscene books, was upheld.
- Hicklin test was applied: does the material deprive and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall?
- The Hicklin test was rejected in the 2004 case of Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal.
Golak Nath v State of Punjab 1967
Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights; Under Article 13(2), law includes a constitutional amendment
Doctrine of prospective overruling laid down. Diluted by 24th Amendment 1971; Law does not include
constitutional amendment as per Article 13(4) and Article 368(3)inserted by 24th Amendment, 1971.
Minerva Mills v UOI 1980
Articles 368(4) & 368(5) struck down; Part of Article 31C struck down which gave primacy to all Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights ; Harmony between DPSP’s and FR’s emphasized.
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973)
- The parliament cannot amend the ‘Basic Structure’.
- Articles 13(4) and 368(3) were valid.
- This led to the passing of the 42nd Amendment and adding Articles 368 (4) & (5).
Balaji Raghavan v UOI 1995
National awards such as Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri (hereinafter called “The National Awards”) are “Titles” within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the Constitution of India.
Indira Sawhney v Union of India 1993
Reservations in promotion not permissible; diluted by Article 16(4A) via 77th Amendment Creamy layer test not applicable to SC/ST’s Reservation beyond 50% not permissible Caste is a predominant test for assessing backwardness Carry-forward rule for vacancies not permissible. Diluted by Article 16(4B) via 81st Amendment
Upheld 27% reservation for OBC’s in public offices.
Ajit Singh v State of Punjab 1999
Also Read Legal Current Affairs for Judiciary Exams
Important Amendments of Constitution of India
Getting reservation in promotion does not grant consequential seniority for SC/ST candidates; ‘Catch up rule’ was laid down under which senior general candidates who were promoted after SC/ST candidates would regain their seniorityover SC/ST candidates promoted; Diluted by addition of a clause “with consequential seniority” in Article 16(4A) via 85th Amendment.
E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu (1973)
- Broadened the concept of equality.
- Equality is a dynamic concept that cannot reduce within traditional limits.
- Equality is antithetical to arbitrariness.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
- The 39th Amendment, which placed the elections of President, Vice-President, PM and speakers of LS, was held unconstitutional.
- The Basic Structure Doctrine was referred to for the first time and reinforced.
- The judgement of the Allahabad High Court was, however, overturned.
Also Read CrPC Important MCQs
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- Overruled AK Gopalan’s case and held that ‘Procedure Established by Law’ includes ‘Due Process of Law.’
- Law passed should be Just, Fair and Reasonable.
- A law depriving personal liberty should not violate the Golden Triangle (Articles 14, 19 & 21).
M. Nagraj v Union of India 2006
Reservation in promotion can be allowed if three tests factors are
shown:
a) Demonstrate backwardness
b) Demonstrate inadequacy of representation
c) Overall efficiency of the administration should not get
compromised
Held per incuriam (in Jarnail Sing v Lachmi Narain Gupta) to the extent that it asks for demonstrating backwardness for SC/ST’s as it goes against Indira Sawhney finding that there need not be shown any data for backwardness for SC/ST’s
Ashok Thakur v Union of India 2008
“Caste” is often used interchangeably with “class” and can be called as the basic unit in social stratification. Creamy layer principle cannot be applied to STs and SCs, as they are a separate backward class by themselves.
The question was restricted to whether Article 15(5), insofar as it applied to State institutions, violated the basic structure. That part of Article 15(5) which referred to private, unaided educational institutions was excluded from the scope of the enquiry. Court upheld the application of the provision to State institutions.
4 thoughts on “Landmark Cases on Constitution of India 2023 | Important Judgments on Constitution of India”