DS Nakara vs. Union of India
Principle aim of a socialist state is to eliminate inequality in income, status and standards of life.
In PUDR vs. Union of India
The Supreme Court has held that minimum wages must be given and not to pay minimum wages is the violation of human dignity and it is also known as exploitation
In Sadhuram vs. Pulin,
The Supreme Court ruled that as between two parties, if a deal is made with one party without serious detriment to the other Court would lean in favour of weaker section of the society.
National Legal Services Authority (NLSA) vs. Union of India
TRANSGENDER Supreme court recognizes transgender persons as third gender in India and ordered government to treat them as minorities and extend reservations.
Novartis v Union of India
Glivec Drug by Novartis not provided patent protection by Supreme Court ruling.
Naz Foundation Case
In 2009, Section 377 was declared unconstitutional, but again in 2013 this judgment was overturned.
Golak Nath Case vs. State of Punjab, 1967
Fundamental Rights are inalienable and cannot be curtailed by the Parliament
Kesavanand Bharti Case
Basic Structure Doctrine
Maneka Gandhi Case
Established that fundamental rights and other laws can be subject to judicial review under assumptions of natural law and “due process of law”, not merely by procedure established by law [JUDICIAL REVIEW]
The Supreme Court in this case reiterated the proposition that the fundamental rights under the constitution of India are not mutually exclusive but are interrelated. According to Justice K. Iyer, ‘a fundamental right is not an island in itself’. The expression “personal liberty” in Article 21 was interpreted broadly to engulf a variety of rights within itself. The court further observed that the fundamental rights should be interpreted in such a manner so as to expand its reach and ambit rather than to concentrate its meaning and content by judicial construction. Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law but that does not mean that a mere semblance of procedure provided by law will satisfy the Article , the procedure should be just , fair and reasonable. The principles of natural justice are implicit in Article 21 and hence the statutory law must not condemn anyone unheard. A reasonable opportunity of defense or hearing should be given to the person before affecting him, and in the absence of which the law will be an arbitrary one.
Vishaka Case
Every case of sexual harassment is a violation of fundamental rights. “Foundation laid for enabling a protected and secure female workforce in India”
R. Rajagopal Case
“The Right to be Left Alone” is part of personal liberty and right to privacy subsisted even if a matter becomes case of public record; Right to Privacy
Shah Bano Case
Won the alimony right (1985). All India Muslim Personal Law Board was formed in 1973.
MC Mehta vs Union of India, 1986
PIL filed by MC Mehta in 1986 that enlarged the concept of Article 21 and Article 32 to include right to healthy environment and pollution free environment.
Indra Sawhney vs. UOI, 1992
Supreme Court held that caste could be a factor for identifying backward classes.
Cheaper Cancer Drug judgment in 2013
Novartis AG for cancer drug Glivec filed case in SC.
“We certainly do not wish the law of patent in this country to develop on the lines where there may be a vast gap between the coverage and the disclosure under the patent; where the scope of the patent is determined not on the intrinsic worth of the invention but by the artful drafting of its claims by skilful lawyers, and where patents are traded as a commodity not for production and marketing of the patented products but to search for someone who may be sued for infringement of the patent,”
A one-month dose of Glivec costs around Rs 1.2 lakh, while generic drugs, manufactured by Indian companies, costs Rs 8,000. A patent would have given Novratis a 20-year monopoly on the drug, meaning that it would have been impossible for the average Indian to find an affordable cancer drug in that period.
Supreme Court on Regulation of Private Education in States
“Education is not a business but a ‘noble’ activity”
It is not a simple activity but aimed at empowering people of the country.
SC has said that state has authority to regulate admissions and fixing of fees of private unaided educational institution.
States have power to regulate admission and fixing of fees is a reasonable restrictions for larger public interest.
Court judged that education institution can never become a business.
They had a right under Article 19 (1) (g) “to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business”. SC in their earlier judgment has recognized right to administer educational institution as an 'occupation' under the Constitution.