Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras (1950)
Freedom of speech
It held that liberty of the press is an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression
AK Gopalan vs State of Madras (1950)
Preventive Detention Act, 1950
Article 21 is available only against arbitrary executive action and not from arbitrary legislative action.
[no interlink between Articles 19 and 21]
Brij Bhushan and Another vs State of Delhi (1950)
Pre-censorship of media
Supreme Court highlighted that restriction on the liberty of the press unless it creates a danger to the State is the restriction on the freedom of speech and expression as provided under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution.
State of Madras vs Smt. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
Caste-based reservation in admission to the educational institutions
Directive Principles have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights.
But, it also held that the Fundamental Rights could be amended by the Parliament by enacting constitutional amendment acts.
As a result, the Parliament made the 1st Amendment Act (1951), the 4th Amendment Act (1955) and the 7th amendment Act (1964) to implement some of the Directives.
For the first time a five-judge bench in the case of “Sankalchand Himatlal Seth V. Union of India, 1976” made the consultation of the judiciary compulsory to be taken into account and without the consultation of the judiciary no judges could be appointed or transferred, this case also specified that there should be due deliberation between the president and the CJI on full and identical facts and if the consultation of the CJI is disregarded by the president this would be a ground for Judicial Review.
Then after this case, the consultation was made compulsory.
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha vs. M/s Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and others (1976)
Public Interest Litigation
This case is considered to be the foundation of Public Interest Litigation in India.
The seed of PIL was sown by Justice Krishna Iyer through this landmark judgement. Soon thereafter, with the efforts of Justice Bhagwati, the concept of PIL has evolved and developed to a great extent.
He is in-fact known as the Champion of PIL in India!
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Others (1978)
Prison Reforms
In this case the apex Court held that a convict is entitled to the precious right guaranteed by Art. 21 that he shall not be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
The Court ruled that fundamental rights do not flee the person as he enters the prison although they may suffer shrinkage necessitated by incarceration.
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of
India (1978)
Personal liberty under Article 21; “Procedure established by law” and “Due process of law”
Legal Issues Involved
Whether the right to go abroad is part of personal liberty?
Whether the right under Article 19(1)(a) has any geographical limitation?
Whether the Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967, is violative of Article 14, Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21?
Principles.
Yet, this does not mean that the Directive Principles cannot be implemented.
The Parliament can amend the Fundamental Rights for implementing the Directive Principles, so long as the amendment does not damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
S. P. Gupta vs President of India and Others (1981)
Appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts
Is the first case, which is also known as the 'Judges' Transfer Case', established a precedent for the Collegium System
It clear that the executive has the sole power to appoint the judges and consultation is necessary for such appointment but Consultation does not mean concurrence i.e., the executive is not bound by the order of the judiciary and has complete discretion to its opinion about such an appointment and it was pointed out that CJI opinion does not have primacy.
The traditional rule of locus standi was liberalized to give way to Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
The term "Locus standi” can be understood as the legal capacity to challenge legislation, an order, or a decision.
Before the 1980s, only the affected parties had the locus standi (standing required in law) to file a case and continue the litigation and the non-affected persons had no locus standi to do so.
Bandhua Morcha vs Union of India (1984)
Public interest litigation cases on the issue of child labour
Indian Express Newspapers vs Union of India and Others (1984)
Freedom of press under freedom of speech and expression.
The petitioners, including newspaper companies and employees, challenged the import duty on newsprint under the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and the auxiliary duty under the Finance Act 1981. They argued that this duty led to an increased cost of newspapers and a drop in circulation, thereby adversely affecting freedom of speech and expression.
The Supreme Court of India directed the central government to re-examine its taxation policy by husband or father-in-law would go to the heirs of the husband.
However, if she dies leaving behind her husband or any issue, then the properties left behind including the properties which she inherited from her parents would devolve simultaneously upon her husband and her issues.
Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2022)
Issue of Maternity Leave Rights
Deepika Singh, a nurse at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), was denied her application for maternity leave after she gave birth.
The employer stated the reason for denying her maternity leave as her previous maternity leave to care for her husband‟s children from a previous marriage.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that a woman‟s statutory right to take maternity leave cannot be restricted because she previously used child care leave for her non-biological children.
Vivek Narayan Sharma vs Union of India (2023)
Upheld the constitutional Validity of Demonetisation of INR 500 & 1000
The Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of demonetization and declared it to be lawful with a 4:1 majority.
The Apex Court held that the Central Government has the power to demonetize all series of banknotes of a particular denomination under Section 26 (2) of the RBI Act, provided that the recommendation has to be made by the Central Board
Supriyo vs. Union of India (2023)
Same-Sex Marriage
In This Judgement Court rejected a landmark petition seeking the recognition of same-sex marriage in the country.
Supreme Court of India urged the government to create legal recognition for same-sex couples so that they do not face discrimination but Stopped short of including such couples within the existing legal framework of marriage.
Kaushal Kishor v. State of Whether a fundamental right under Article 19 or 21 of the Constitution of India could be claimed against adoptable children and establish adoption agencies.
Association for Democratic
Reforms vs Union of India
(2024)
This case challenged the amendments made by the Finance Act 2017 that created the electoral bonds scheme.
The bench found that the Electoral Bond Scheme (EBS), 2018, which guaranteed anonymity to the corporate donors to political parties, went against the spirit of free and fair elections, a basic feature of the Constitution.
The bench held that the non-disclosure of the identity of the contributors to the political parties violates the right to information of the voters.
The Supreme Court directed the issuing bank, State Bank of India (SBI), to cease issuing electorals with immediate effect. The top court has ordered SBI to provide the Election Commission of India (ECI) with detailed records of all electoral bond contributions received by political parties from the scheme‟s interim order in 2019 up to the present date.