A K Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950)
Narrow interpretation of Article 21
The Supreme Court has taken a narrow interpretation of Article 21. It held that the protection under Article 21 is available only against arbitrary executive action and not from arbitrary legislative action. This means that the State can deprive the right to life and personal liberty of a person based on a law. This is because of the expression ‘procedure established by law’ in Article 21, which is different from the expression ‘due process of law’ contained in the American Constitution. Hence, the validity of a law that has prescribed a procedure cannot be questioned on the ground that the law is unreasonable, unfair or unjust.
Secondly, the Supreme Court held that the ‘personal liberty’ means only liberty relating to the person or body of the individual.
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
Amendability of Fundamental Rights – Power to amend by Parliament is absolute
The constitutional validity of the First Amendment Act (1951), which curtailed the right to property, was challenged. The Supreme Court ruled that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
The word ‘law’ in Article 13 includes only ordinary laws and not the constitutional amendment acts (constituent laws). Therefore, the Parliament can abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting a constitutional amendment act and such a law will not be void under Article 13.
State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles of State Policy
Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the former would prevail. It declared that the 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.
Struck down the reservation policy of Madras
Berubari Union (1960)
Preamble - A part or not!
Preamble is not a part of the Constitution. Further where the terms used in any article are ambiguous or capable of more than one meaning, some assistance at interpretation maybe taken from the objectives enshrined in the Preamble.
This case challenged the Parliament's authority to transfer the territory of Berubai to Pakistan.
The Supreme Court looked into Article 3 in depth and determined that the Parliament could not pass laws to carry out the Nehru-Noon agreement under this provision.
As a result, the 9th Amendment Act was enacted to make the agreement enforceable.
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)
Amendability of Fundamental Rights
Challenged the 17th amendment which diluted the right to property by amending Article 31A
The SC reversed its earlier stand in Shankari Prasad Case of 1951 regarding the amendability of the Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament cannot take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights, which are ‘sacrosanct’ in nature. The Fundamental Rights are given a ‘transcendental and immutable’ position. In other words, the Court held that the Fundamental Rights cannot be amended for the implementation of the Directive Principles.
A constitutional amendment act is also a law within the meaning of Article 13 and hence, would be void for violating any of the Fundamental Rights.
It stated that Article 368 while it establishes the framework for amending the Constitution, it does not grant Parliament the ability to do so.
The Parliament reacted to the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Golak Nath case (1967) by enacting the 24th Amendment Act (1971). This Act amended Articles 13 and 368. It declared that the Parliament has the power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights under Article 368 and such an act will not be a law under the meaning of Article 13.
R C Cooper v. Union of India (1970)
Justiciability of President’s satisfaction in the promulgation of an ordinance:
The Supreme Court held that the President’s satisfaction can be questioned in a court on the ground of malafide. This means that the decision of the President to issue an ordinance can be questioned in a court on the ground that the President has prorogued one House or both Houses of Parliament deliberately with a view to promulgate an ordinance on a controversial subject, so as to bypass the parliamentary decision and thereby circumventing the authority of the Parliament.
Struck down the bank nationalization decision
The 38th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1975 made the President’s satisfaction final and conclusive and beyond judicial review. But, this provision was deleted by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978. Thus, the President’s satisfaction is justiciable on the ground of malafide.
Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Scindia (1971) – struck down the abolition of privy purses
Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) (popularly known as Fundamental Rights case)
Basic Structure Doctrine - Supremacy of the Constitution; Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary; Republic and democratic form of government; Secular character of the constitution; Federal character of the constitution; Sovereignty and unity of India; Freedom and dignity of the individual; Mandate to build a welfare state; Parliamentary System
Preamble - Part of the Constitution
SC rejected the previous ruling of Berubari Union and ruled that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution and the Preamble can be amended but not amending the basic features of the Constitution.
Amendability of the Constitution
In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court overruled its judgement in the Golak Nath case (1967). It upheld the validity of the 24th Amendment Act (1971) and stated that Parliament is empowered to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights. At the same time, it laid down a new doctrine of the ‘basic structure’ (or ‘basic features’) of the Constitution. It ruled that the constituent power of Parliament under Article 368 does not enable it to alter the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. This means that the Parliament cannot abridge or take away a Fundamental Right that forms a part of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
Article 31C
In response to the ruling of Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the 25th CA act of 1971 Article 31C was inserted which states that
No law that seeks to implement the socialistic directive principles specified in Article 39(b) or (c) shall be void on the ground of contravention of the fundamental rights conferred by Article 14, Article 19 or Article 31.
No law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be questioned in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such a policy.
In the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the Supreme Court declared the above second provision of Article 31C as unconstitutional and invalid on the ground that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and hence, cannot be taken away. However, the above first provision of Article 31C was held to be constitutional and valid.
Aftermath the judgement, Justice A N Ray fourth in line of seniority and part of minority judgement superseded his seniors to become 14th CJI
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) (Election Case)
Basic Structure Doctrine - Free and Fair Elections; Rule of Law; Judicial Review
Judicial Review on Election Disputes
The Supreme Court invalidated a provision of the 39th Amendment Act (1975) which kept the election disputes involving the Prime Minister and the Speaker of Lok Sabha outside the jurisdiction of all courts. The court said that this provision was beyond the amending power of Parliament as it affected the basic structure of the constitution.
ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla 1976 – Habeas corpus case
This controversial judgment of P.N. Bhagwati decreed that during the Emergency a person's right to not be unlawfully detained (i.e. habeas corpus) can be suspended. This judgment received a lot of criticism since it reduced the importance attached to Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution.
H R Khanna gave a lone and historic dissenting judgement upholding the right to life even during emergency.
In 1977, M U Beg was appointed as CJI superseding H R Khanna, the then seniormost judge
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Wider Interpretation of Article 21
The Supreme Court overruled its judgement in the Gopalan case by taking a wider interpretation of the Article 21. Therefore, it ruled that the right to life and personal liberty of a person can be deprived by a law provided the procedure prescribed by that law is reasonable, fair and just. In other words, it has introduced the American expression ‘due process of law’. In effect, the protection under Article 21 should be available not only against arbitrary executive action but also against arbitrary legislative action.
Further, the court held that the ‘right to life’ as embodied in Article 21 is not merely confined to animal existence or survival but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. It also ruled that the expression ‘Personal Liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights that go to constitute the personal liberties of a man. The most important aspect of the judgement was the interconnection it established between the provisions of Articles 19, 14, and 21. (golden triangle of Indian constitution)
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Basic Structure Doctrine - Limited Amending power of the Parliament; Harmony and balance between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy; Judicial Review. Thus strengthened the basic structure doctrine.
The 38th Amendment Act of 1975 made the declaration of a National Emergency immune from judicial review. But, this provision was subsequently deleted by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. Further, in the Minerva Mills case, (1980), the Supreme Court held that the proclamation of a national emergency can be challenged in a court on the ground of malafide or that the declaration was based on wholly extraneous and irrelevant facts or is absurd or perverse.
42nd Amendment Act of 1976 amended Article 368 and declared that there is no limitation on the constituent power of Parliament and no amendment can be questioned in any court on any ground including that of the contravention of any of the Fundamental Rights. However, the Supreme Court invalidated this provision as it excluded judicial review which is a ‘basic feature’ of the Constitution.
The SC held that “Since the Constitution had conferred a limited amending power on the Parliament, the Parliament cannot under the exercise of that limited power enlarge that very power into absolute power. Indeed, limited amending power is one of the basic features of the Constitution and, therefore, the limitations on that power cannot be destroyed.” The Supreme Court's decision establishes that the Constitution is supreme, not the Parliament.
In other words, Parliament cannot, under article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic features. The donee of a limited power cannot by the exercise of that power convert the limited power into an unlimited one”.
The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) extended the scope of Article 31C by including within its protection any law to implement any of the directive principles specified in Part IV of the Constitution and not merely in Article 39 (b) or (c). However, this extension was declared unconstitutional and invalid by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980).
In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Supreme Court also held that ‘the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. This harmony and balance between the two is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution. The goals set out by the Directive Principles have to be achieved without the abrogation of the means provided by the Fundamental Rights.
Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the doctrine of the ‘basic structure’ and clarified that it would apply to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973
the court held that all the laws included in the Ninth Schedule prior to the Kesavananda case would receive the protection of Article 31B. However, the Acts and Regulations inserted in the Ninth Schedule post the Kesavananda judgement, would not be protected under Article 31B and would be open to scrutiny on the grounds of being in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Doctrine of Prospective Overruling - It dictates that a decision made in a particular case would have operation only in the future and will not carry any retrospective effect on any past decisions
Nakara vs Union of India (1983) - Indian socialism is a blend of Marxism and Gandhism, leaning heavily towards Gandhian socialism.
D. C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987)
Promulgation of Ordinance by the President:
So far, no case has gone to the Supreme Court regarding promulgation of ordinance by the President.
But, in the D.C. Wadhwa case (1987) the SC pointed out that between 1967–1981 the Governor of Bihar promulgated 256 ordinances and all these were kept in force for periods ranging from one to fourteen years by promulgation from time to time. The court ruled that successive repromulgation of ordinances with the same text without any attempt to get the bills passed by the assembly would amount to violation of the Constitution and the ordinance so repromulgated is liable to be struck down. It is the colorable exercise of power by executive It held that the exceptional power of law-making through ordinance cannot be used as a substitute for the legislative power of the state legislature.
Ordinance route only to meet an extraordinary situation and cannot be perverted to serve political ends
Exceptions for repromulgation of ordinance
Matter of approving ordinance could not be taken up due to existing legislative business
Emergency situation where re promulgation becomes necessary
Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992) (Mandal Case) -
The Supreme Court looked into the scope and application of Article 16(4), which provides for job reservation for backward classes.
Economic backwardness is not a criterion for providing reservation. In fact, the court squashed the 10% reservation for economic backward classes reservation passed by P V Narasimha Rao government.
Reservation should be provided only on the basis of social and educational backwardness. It recognized the validity of the 27 per cent reservation.
Accepted caste as a reliable factor of backwardness
The concept of ‘creamy layer’ gained currency through this judgment. Those among the OBCs who had transcended their social backwardness were to be excluded from the reservation.
Reservation is not a fundamental right. It's the discretion of the State.
Reservation shall be provided only on the time of recruitment and not at the time of promotion.
Following this 77th CA act, 1995, article 16-4A was added which provides for reservation in promotion for SCs and STs
The 50% limit on reservation was laid down by the Supreme Court as it was needed to ensure “efficiency” in administration. Reservation can exceed 50% only under exceptional circumstances.
Right to equality – Reasonable classification test
Whether there is a clear way to differentiate members of one class from another and whether there is a clear relation between making this distinction and achieving the goal that government wishes to achieve
Manifest arbitrariness test
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Basic Structure Doctrine - Federalism; Judicial Review; Secularism
The Supreme Court attempted to stop the blatant abuse of Article 356 in this decision.
The 38th Amendment Act of 1975 made the satisfaction of the President in invoking Article 356 final and conclusive which could not be challenged in any court on any ground. But, this provision was subsequently deleted by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 implying that the satisfaction of the President is not beyond judicial review. In Bommai case (1994), the following propositions have been laid down by the Supreme Court on imposition of President’s Rule in a state under Article 356:
The presidential proclamation imposing President’s Rule is subject to judicial review.
The satisfaction of the President must be based on relevant material. The action of the president can be struck down by the court if it is based on irrelevant or extraneous grounds or if it was found to be malafide or perverse.
The burden lies on the Centre to prove that relevant material exists to justify the imposition of the President’s Rule.
The court cannot go into the correctness of the material or its adequacy but it can see whether it is relevant to the action.
If the court holds the presidential proclamation to be unconstitutional and invalid, it has power to restore the dismissed state government and revive the state legislative assembly if it was suspended or dissolved.
The state legislative assembly should be dissolved only after the Parliament has approved the presidential proclamation. Until such approval is given, the president can only suspend the assembly. In case the Parliament fails to approve the proclamation, the assembly would get reactivated.
The question of the state government losing the confidence of the legislative assembly should be decided on the floor of the House and until that is done the ministry should not be unseated.
Secularism is one of the ‘basic features’ of the Constitution. Hence, a state government pursuing anti-secular politics is liable to action under Article 356.
Based on the report of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-state Relations (1983-88), the Supreme Court in the Bommai case (1994) enlisted the situations where the exercise of power under Article 356 could be proper or improper
The Supreme Court laid down that the Constitution is federal and characterized federalism as its ‘basic feature’. It observed: “The fact that under the scheme of our Constitution, greater power is conferred upon the Centre vis-a-vis the states does not mean that the states are mere appendages of the Centre. The states have an independent constitutional existence. They are not satellites or agents of the Centre. Within the sphere allotted to them, the states are supreme. The fact that during an emergency and in certain other eventualities their powers are overridden or invaded by the Centre is not destructive of the essential federal feature of the Constitution. They are exceptions and the exceptions are not a rule. Let it be said that the federalism in the Indian Constitution is not a matter of administrative convenience, but one of principle–the outcome of our own process and a recognition of the ground realities”.
LIC of India vs Consumer Education and Research Centre (1995) - SC again held that the Preamble is a part of the Constitution.
T N Seshan and others vs Union of India (1995): It conferred equal powers on the Election Commissioners as those enjoyed by the Chief Election Commissioner (referring to the Chief Election Commissioner as primus inter pares, or first among equals) and even offered majority power, whereby any two can overrule even the Chief Election Commissioner.
Cricket Association Of Bengal case (1995) - Right to receive and impart information is implicit in free speech
Vishaka & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) - SC laid guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace.
Vineet Narain Case (1997)
laid down several steps to secure the autonomy of the CBI, such as the appointment of the CBI director by a high-powered committee (PM, LoO, CJI), and the fixed tenure of two years for the CBI director.
directions regarding the superior role of CVC with respect to corruption and the superintendence of the CVC over the CBI
Ashok Hurra vs Rupa Hurra case (2002) - Curative jurisdiction is a rare remedy evolved by a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court. A party can take only two limited grounds in curative petition – he or she was not given an opportunity to be hear and the judges were biased (violation of principles of natural justice). Curative petition follows the dismissal of the review petition – last legal avenue open in the Supreme Court
T M A Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka (2002) – SC held that minorities should be determined at state level. Further upheld in Bal Patil case (2005)
Prakash Singh Case (2006) - SC gave a 7-point directive for police
Set up National Security Commission at the Union level to prepare a panel for selection and appointment of Chiefs to the Central Police Organizations. Hence the same was set up in 2017 with the Union Home Minister as the head. It also has the National Security Advisor, Cabinet Secretary, Home Secretary and Director of Intelligence Bureau as its members.
Constitute a State Security Commission (SSC) to ensure that the state government does not exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on police force
Set up a Police Establishment Board to decide on transfers, postings, promotions and other service-related matters.
Set up Police Complaints Authority at State and district level to inquire into public complaints against police officers.
Ensure that the DGP is appointed through the merit-based transparent process with a minimum tenure of 2 years irrespective of the date of superannuation.
Even police officers on operational duties are also provided a minimum tenure of 2 years.
Separation of Investigative and Law & Order functions of the police.
I. R. Coelho Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) (IX Schedule case) -
Supreme Court ruled that there could not be any blanket immunity from judicial review of laws included in the Ninth Schedule. The court held that judicial review is a ‘basic feature’ of the constitution and it could not be taken away by putting a law under the Ninth Schedule. It said that the laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are open to challenge in court if they violated fundamentals rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 or the ‘basic structure’ of the constitution.
Nandini Sundar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) - SC declared Salwa Judum which is an informal Tribal Militia created by the Chattisgarh government to combat the Naxals as unconstitutional.
Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs Union of India (2013)
Directed all Directors General of Police to register a first information report as a case of trafficking or abduction in every case of a missing child.
At least one police officer not below the rank of assistant sub-inspector in each police station is mandatorily required to undergo training to deal with children in conflict with the law and in need of care and protection.
Each district is supposed to have its special juvenile police unit, headed by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
T S R Subramanian vs Union of India (2013) - Supreme Court ruled that civil servants were not bound to follow oral directives as they undermine credibility. A Civil Services Board (CSB), headed by the Cabinet Secretary at national level, and Chief Secretary at state level, be set up to recommend transfer/postings of the officers of the All India Services (IAS, IFoS and IPS). There was to be no interference of Ministers in state, other than the Chief Minister, in transfers/postings of civil servants.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) - Apex Court imposed checks and balances on the powers of the police regarding arrests. The judgment had laid guidelines that arrests should be an exception in cases where the offences are punishable with less than 7 years imprisonment. Bail is the norm and jail is an exception.
National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs Union of India (2014) – SC declared transgender people the 'third gender', affirmed that the fundamental rights granted under the Constitution of India will be equally applicable to them, and gave them the right to self-identification of their gender as male, female or third gender. The court also held that because transgender people were treated as socially and economically backward classes, they will be granted reservations in admissions to educational institutions and jobs.
Safai Karamchari Andolan and others vs Union of India 2014: Prohibited manual scavenging and directed rehabilitation of people engaged in manual scavenging since 1993.
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) – SC declared jallikattu illegitimate and the practice was cruel causing unnecessary pain and suffering
Fourth Judges Case (2015) - Supreme Court has declared both the 99th Constitutional Amendment as well as the NJAC Act as unconstitutional and void. The court opined that the new system (i.e., NJAC) would affect the independence of the judiciary.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) –
Section 66A of IT Act 2000 - criminalizes the sending of grossly offensive messages through a computer or other communication devices. Declared unconstitutional by SC as the term ‘grossly offensive’ to be open ended, undefined, vague and over broad
Upheld Section 69A and gave clear guidelines for government to block information from public access - sovereignty and integrity of India, defense, state security, public order and friendly relations with foreign states
Section 79 – safe harbour – granting immunity to intermediaries so long as they observe due diligence by discharging their duties under the law
Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar (2017) – Supreme Court ruled that the “RE-PROMULGATION OF ORDINANCES” is a fraud on our Indian Constitution as it undermines parliamentary legislative procedures (subversion of democratic legislative process). The approval and gratification of the President of India, under Article 123, and the Governor, under Article 213, when issuing an Ordinance is not excluded from judicial process and legal challenge. Court is empowered to look into relevance of material before President. Article 123 is not a parallel source of law making or an independent legislative authority
People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs Union of India (1996)
Laid down procedure and safeguards to check arbitrariness and possible misuse of powers by authorities in interception of phones under Telegraph Act 1885. Right to privacy can be curtailed only according to procedure established by law and the procedure itself must be just, fair and reasonable - Establishing an independent oversight mechanism for interception
Justice K S Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2018) - Constitutionality of Aadhaar Act – 7 judge bench
SC held that Right to privacy is part of right to life under article 21.
doctrine of proportionality - any invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the three requirements of legality’, ‘need’, and ‘proportionality’.
Legality – the action must be sanctioned by law
Need - Legitimate state aim/State interest, like national security, proper deployment of national resources, and protection of revenue, social welfare; and
Proportionality – ensuring a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them. Extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need of such interference
No alternative and less intrusive means must be available to attain the same need
There must be procedural guarantee against the abuse of such interreference
A balance must be struck between means chosen and the right violated
Shafin Jahan vs Asokan K.M. and others (Hadiya case) (2018) –
SC said that the right to choose and marry a partner was considered to be a constitutionally guaranteed freedom. SC held that the “intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable” and “society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners”.
NCT of Delhi vs UOI Case 2018:
Lt governor should act on aid and advice of COM except in case of Land, Public Order and Police.
The phrase to "Refer any matter" by the LT Governor to the President" does not mean. "Every matter" to the President.
“The exercise of establishing a democratic and representative form of government for NCT of Delhi by insertion of Articles 239AA and 239AB (69th CA act, 1991) would turn futile if the Government of Delhi that enjoys the confidence of the people of Delhi is not able to usher in policies and laws over which the Delhi Legislative Assembly has powers to legislate for the NCT of Delhi.
Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020) - Regarding internet shutdowns
Supreme Court of India held that right to trade over internet and access to information via the Internet is a fundamental right under the right to freedom of speech and expression.
SC further held that the internet cannot be suspended for an indefinite period and cannot be used as a tool to prevent the legitimate expression of opinion
Internet suspensions should adhere to principle of proportionality and must not extend beyond necessary duration – exploration of suitable alternatives and adoption of least intrusive measures
The orders must include reasons for the suspension and its copy must be sent to a Review Committee consisting of senior State officials - to determine its duration and to ensure that it would not extend beyond a period which was necessary.
The reasons should not only explain the necessity of the suspension but also the “unavoidable” circumstance which necessitated the order.
P K Gosh vs J G Rajput case (1995) -
SC said Credibility of judiciary is based not only on giving justice but to ensure that justice is seen to be done.
Criminalization of Politics:
Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) v. Union of India: (2002) SC mandated the disclosure of information relating to criminal antecedents, educational qualification, and personal assets of a candidate contesting elections.
Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) case: SC struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 that allowed convicted lawmakers a three-month period for filing appeal to the higher court and to get a stay on the conviction and sentence. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld to disqualify a legislator immediately when convicted for two or more years’ prison.
Article 102(1) does not create any difference between sitting member and a candidate so far as disqualification is concerned
Public Interest Foundation and Ors. v Union of India (2018): Supreme Court held that a person cannot be disqualified from membership in a legislative body on the mere framing of criminal charges against them.
Currently, Section 8 of the RP Act deals with disqualification upon conviction, not charge framing, for certain offences. Under the Act, a person convicted for any offence under Sections 8(1), (2) and (3) stands disqualified from the date of conviction. None of these provisions disqualify a person upon framing of charges.
Law Commission recommended that filing a false affidavit under Section 123 (4) of the RPA 1951 should be a ground for disqualification under Section 8(1) of the RP Act. It also found that due to long delays in the trial process, disqualification at the stage of conviction (6% conviction rate) has been ineffective in curbing the criminalization of politics. Hence, it recommended that the framing of charges should trigger electoral disqualification as it is judicially supervised and early in the trial process.
But the court declined to add further criteria for disqualification under Section 8 of the RP Act, observing that it was not for the Courts but the Legislature to bring about changes to the law.
SC had ordered that trials, in relation to sitting MPs and MLAs be concluded within a year of charges against them being framed.
Lok Prahari v. Union of India case (2018): The court had directed political parties to publish the criminal history of their election candidates on the home page of their website under the caption “candidate with criminal antecedence” within 48 hours of their selection.
Mahipal Singh Rana vs State of UP (2019): Urged Central Government to set up Special Courts for dealing
Other cases for free and fair elections
Mohinder Singh Gill vs Chief Election Commissioner – little large Indian shall not be hijacked from the course of free and fair elections by mob muscle or subtle perversion
Kuldip Nayar versus Union of India (2006)
upheld the system of open ballot for Rajya Sabha elections. It reasoned that if secrecy becomes a source for corruption, then transparency has the capacity to remove it. However, the court held that an elected MLA of a political party would not face disqualification under the Tenth Schedule for voting against their party candidate. He/she may at the most attract disciplinary action from their political party.
Subramanian Swamy vs Election Commission of India (2013) - SC directed ECI to use VVPAT.
SC held that election process should have fullest transparency in system and to restore the confidence of the voters. First time used in Nagaland - Noksen Constituency in 2013.
S Subramaniam Balaji vs Government of Tamil Nadu (2013)
SC held that - Distribution of freebies of any kind, undoubtedly, influences all people, so ECI come out with mechanism to keep a check on them. SC Directed ECI to frame guidelines with regard to the contents of election manifestos in consultation with all recognized political parties.
Distribution of irrational freebies using money from consolidated funds before elections to lure voters was analogues to the offences of bribery and undue influence under Section 123 of RPA 1951
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2013): SC recognized negative voting as a constitutional right of a voter and directed the Government to provide the ‘NOTA’ option in electronic voting machines. Right to reject was formalized
Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India (2023): Appointment of election commissioners on advice of a high power committee
Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India (2024) – struck down electoral bonds
Honour killing and Khap Panchayat:
Lata Singh vs State of UP (2006): SC observed that there is nothing honourable in honour killings and they are barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted persons with feudal minds and hence are shame killings
Inter caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying caste system
Arunmugam Servai vs State of Tamil Nadu 2006: Amendment in Special marriage act to reduce duration for registration of marriage + fast track court to be established in honour killing cases.
Shakti Vahini vs UOI 2018: It is a choice of individuals to choose their partner, provided under article 19 & 21. The consent of the Family is not required before marriage and has laid down the guidelines to eradicate honour killings in India.
Live in relationships deserve legal recognition and protection
Mob lynching: Tahseen Poonawalla vs UOI 2018:
SC issued directions to states regarding preventive, punitive and remedial measures to be taken in respect of mob lynching. The court had also recommended that Parliament may create a special law against lynching.
SC said that police should take preventive steps to stop incidents of Hate speech
Asked governments to taken steps to stop dissemination of explosive media having tendency to incite mob violence and lynching
Rajiv Gauba committee was set up to curb mob lynching
Passive Euthanasia:
Aruna Shanbaug vs UOI 2011: SC allowed Passive euthanasia thus affirming the right to die with dignity
Right to livelihood:
Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) - SC has said Pavement dwellers have right to livelihood under article 21. [Forced eviction is Unreasonable.]
Custodial violence: D K Basu vs State of West Bengal (1996)
SC laid down guidelines regarding custodial deaths and violence by imposing liability upon the police.
Magistrate is required to ask the accused whether he as a medical problem and people should not be handcuffed
Environment related cases:
M C Mehta vs Union of India (1986) - Supreme Court laid down the principle of absolute liability principle instead of strict liability principle on Oleum Gas leak case occurred in Delhi
Subash Singh vs State of Bihar (1991) – SC held that Article 21 includes the right to pollution free atmosphere and water
TN Godavarman Thirumulpad case 1996
Samit Mehta vs Union of India (2016) – SC reaffirmed the “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle” and also recognized Right to clean environment as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Arun Gopal vs Union of India (2018) - SC on fire cracking
The court rejected arguments that bursting crackers was a fundamental right.
It also ruled it out as being an essential practice during religious festivals like Diwali.
It held that Article 25 (right to religion) is subject to Article 21 (right to life).
MC Mehta vs UOI 2018: Court directed that no BS-4 vehicles should be sold in delhi and only BS-6 vehicles can be sold.
M K Ranjitsinh vs Union of India (2021) - SC asked Rajasthan and Gujarat government to do away with overhead cables, that is the reason for death of endangered species The great indian busturd.
LGBT Rights:
Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009) - Delhi High Court 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.
Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation (2013) – SC overturned the Delhi HC verdict in Naz Foundation Case and reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that the LGBTQ community constitute a minuscule minority and so there was no need to decriminalize homosexual sex.
377 criminalized sex between non heterosexual couples punishable with 10 years of imprisonment
Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union Of India (2018) - SC decriminalised homosexuality by partially striking down Section 377 of IPC and dismissed the position taken by SC in Suresh Kumar Koushal case (2013)
Supriyo vs Union of India (2023)
Gender equality:
Mohammed Ahmad Khan vs Shah Bano Begum (1985) - Supreme Court delivered a judgment favouring maintenance given to an aggrieved divorced Muslim woman
It ruled for the right to alimony beyond 90 days (period of iddat in Islamic Law)
Section 125 of CrPC is secular – it applies to every religion – maintenance to wife, children and parent to all citizens
Congress government passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which diluted the judgment of the Supreme Court and restricted the right of Muslim divorcées to alimony from their former husbands for only period of iddat (3 months)
However, in later judgements including the Daniel Latifi case, SC upheld the Shah Bano judgement – to get maintenance till she re marries
Arif Muhammad Khan resigned from the INC following differences in opinion with the law
Vishaka and others vs State of Rajasthan (1997)
Shayara Bano vs Union of India (2017): practice of talaq-e-biddat or instantaneous triple talaq is unconstitutional.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) – SC decriminalized adultery by declaring Section 497 of Indian Penal Code unconstitutional on the ground that woman is not the chattel of her husband. However, adultery is still a sufficient ground for divorce as ruled by the Supreme Court.
a law that treats women differently based on gender stereotypes is an affront to women’s dignity
A law held constitutional earlier can be held unconstitutional based on the later development in social norms and values including gender equality. Same is the case with Navtej Singh Johar Case
Section 375 of IPC – Marital Rape
Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v State of Kerala (2018) - declared unconstitutional the Sabarimala Temple's custom of prohibiting women in their 'menstruating years' from entering.
Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018) – Gender Justice
Kirti vs Oriental Insurance Company (2021) – highlighted the contribution of unpaid domestic work by housewives
X vs Government of NCT of Delhi 2022
Right to privacy enables individual to exercise autonomy over their body and mind and allowed women complete freedom to make reproductive choices
Court reiterated its categorical ban on the “two finger test” and said it was irrelevant to determination of rape and that it violated the dignity of rape survivors or victims
2023 – Handbook on Gender Stereotypes - to use gender neutral words
Tribunals
S P Sampath Kumar case (1986)
It is constitutionally valid for Parliament to create an alternate institution to High Courts with jurisdiction over certain matters provided that the alternate body has same efficacy as that of the High Court. Such tribunals will be considered substitutes of the High Courts.
L Chandra Kumar case (1997)
Basic Structure - Powers of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227; Writ jurisdiction of SC and HC (Article 32)
A tribunal which substitutes High Courts as an alternative institutional mechanism for judicial review (to lessen the burden on High Courts) must have the status of High Courts.
Originally, appeals against the orders of the CAT could be made only in the Supreme Court and not in the high courts. However, in the Chandra Kumar case (1997), the Supreme Court declared this restriction on the jurisdiction of the high courts as unconstitutional, holding that judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It laid down that appeals against the orders of the CAT shall lie before the division bench of the concerned high court first.
Article 323B empowers the appropriate legislature (Parliament or state legislature) to establish a tribunal for the adjudication of election disputes. It also provides for the exclusion of the jurisdiction of all courts (except the special leave appeal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court) in such disputes. So far, no such tribunal has been established. It must be noted here that in the Chandra Kumar case (1997), the Supreme Court declared this provision as unconstitutional. Consequently, if at any time an election tribunal is established, an appeal from its decision lies to the high court.
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India (2010)
Court held that the tenure of three years for members will “preclude cultivation of adjudicatory experience and is thus injurious to the efficiency of the Tribunals”.
Court explicitly held that only judges and advocates can be considered for appointment as a judicial member of the tribunal and that persons from the Indian Legal Service cannot be considered for appointment as judicial member.
R Gandhi vs Union of India (2010)
In any bench, technical members must not outnumber judicial members.
Only Secretary level officers with specialized knowledge should be appointed as technical members.
Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019)
SC said that abolition or amalgamation of tribunals need a judicial impact assessment.
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India (2021)
The Court struck down provisions related to the four-year tenure and minimum age requirement of 50 years for members. Members will have a term of five years instead of four years.
National Tribunals Commission which shall act as an independent body to supervise the appointments and functioning of Tribunals, as well as to conduct disciplinary proceedings against members of Tribunals and to take care of administrative and infrastructural needs of the Tribunals.
Reservations:
M R Balaji & others vs State of Mysore (1962) – 7 judge bench
reservations were in the nature of an exception or special provision under constitution. Therefore, they cannot be provided for more than 50%
Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992)
M. Nagraj v. Union of India 2006
In it, the Court validated Parliament's decision to extend reservations for SC/STs to include promotions (reservation in promotion) – Article 16 (4A) (77th Constitutional amendment 1995)
However, the court held that any such reservation policy in order to be constitutionally valid shall satisfy the following three constitutional requirements:
The SC and ST community should be socially and educationally backward.
The SC and ST communities are not adequately represented in position/service for which reservations in promotion will be granted.
Such a reservation policy shall not affect the overall administrative efficiency.
Jarnail Singh v Lacchmi Narain Gupta (2018)
Reservation in promotion does not require the state to collect quantifiable data on the backwardness of SC/ST.
However, while doing so, it introduced the creamy layer exclusion principle, thus requiring that the State does not extend reservations in promotion to SC/ST individuals who belong to the creamy layer of the said SC/ST.
SC also observed that Government should come out with creamy layer for SC/ST for effective penetration of reservation and avoid concentration of reservation within few communities.
Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs Chief Minister, Maharashtra (2021) - SC struck down 16% Maratha quota provided under SEBC
Reasons - breached 50% limit; Marathas are not socially and educationally backward; violation of 102nd constitutional amendment act 2018
Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India (2022) – upheld 103rd constitutional amendment act – EWS quota
Office of Profit:
Pradyut Bordoloi vs Swapan Roy (2001): SC has laid down certain parameters to check whether an office constitutes office of profit or not:
Whether the government has appointed?
Whether the government has power to dismiss or remove?
Is the government paying the remuneration?
Whether the government determines or controls functions of such an office?
Whether functions are performed for the government?
Governor:
S R Bommai vs Union of India (1994)
Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India in 2006 – Bihar Assembly Dissolution Case
After finding that the Governor abused power in recommending Presidential rule in Bihar, SC said that motivated and whimsical conduct of Governor is amenable to judicial review
recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission (1983) were affirmed
Right persons should be chosen as governors for maintaining the sanctity of the post
Court also reinforced the need for substantive material supporting President’s rule
B P Singhal vs Union of India (2010)
SC held that no limitations or restrictions are placed on the doctrine of pleasure but SC ruled that govt change not a ground to remove Governors. The power of removing governors before his or her five year tenure should only be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons. It held that if a sacked governor comes to court, the Centre will have to justify its discretion.
Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974) and Nabam Rebia vs Deputy Speaker (2016) –
SC has held that Governors can act only on the aid and advice of the CoM and cannot exercise any executive powers independently ignoring the elected government
Governor is a shorthand expression for the state government
Governor does not exercise their discretionary powers while withholding assent or returning a Bill to the State Legislature.
Queen reigns but the Minister rules
Nabam Rebia vs Deputy Speaker (2016) – Arunachal Pradesh political crisis
Governor advanced assembly session to conduct floor test
Governor can summon, prorogue and dissolve the House only on the aid and advice of the CoM and his powers are subjected to judicial review – court then restored the government
Keisham Megha Chandra Singh case (2020)
SC held that the governor should act on a bill within a reasonable time of 3 months – quoting the phrase as soon as possible in Article 200
Sena vs Sena (2023)
Governors shall not enter into inner or intra party conflicts
Governor cannot order floor test without any objective material
State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to Governor of Punjab (2023)
Interpretation of Article 200 – when Governor withholds assent – bill is resent to legislature for reconsideration
Collegium
S. P. Gupta and others vs Union of India or First Judges Case (1981)
Consultation is not concurrence; only exchange of views
Executive primacy in judicial appointments
Advocates-on-Record Association Vs. Union of India or Second Judges Case (1993)
Consultation means concurrence; advice by CJI is binding
CJI will consult two senior most colleagues
Presidential Reference Case or Third Judges case (1998)
Consultation of plurality of judges
Collegium of CJI and four seniormost judges
Anti Defection:
Kihoto hollohan vs Zachillhu case 1992 (Defection case)
SC held the validity of anti defection law and observed that speaker when exercises the power to disqualify a member acts like Tribunal. Hence the decision is subject to judicial review.
Dissenting judgement - Vesting power to decide on defections with Speaker violates basic democratic principles
Ravi S. Naik and Sanjay Bandekar versus Union of India (1994)
voluntarily giving up membership under the Tenth Schedule is not synonymous with only formally resigning from the party to which the member belongs.
The conduct of a member both inside and outside the house can be looked into to infer if it qualities as voluntarily giving up membership.
Sadiq Ali vs Election Commission of India (1971) - Three test formula given by SC
Aims and objective of the party
Act as per party’s constitution and reflecting inner party democracy
Majority in legislative and organization wings of the party
Nabam Rebia (2016) case
Speaker or deputy speaker facing notice of removal cannot decide disqualification proceedings against legislators
Karnataka MLA’s disqualification case (2019)
Speaker who cannot stay aloof from the pressures of his political party does not deserve to occupy this chair
Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. the Hon’ble Speaker of Manipur Assembly (2020)
The Court suggested that an independent tribunal to substitute the Speaker to deal with matters of disqualifications under Tenth Schedule.
The Tribunal will be headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court. This will ensure that such disputes are decided both swiftly and impartially.
SC said the disqualification petition should be cleared by the Speaker within 3 months.
Sena vs Sena (2023)
Made distinction between legislature party made of MLAs and political party made of party cadre
Power to appoint whips is to be exercised by political party
Speaker must not base his decision only based on legislative majority. The structure of leadership outside the Legislative assembly should be considered
Real party should be determined from the support from political wing and not from members on legislative side
Speaker and money bill
Justice K S Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2018) - Constitutionality of Aadhaar Act
Speaker’s certification of a bill as money bill is subjected to judicial review
Right to strike and protest:
T K Rangarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu (2006) - SC held that govt employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike. Fundamental right to strike is qualified right, means it can be taken by state through enactment of law.
Ramlila Maidan Incident vs Home Secretary, Union of India (2012): The Supreme Court had stated that citizens have a fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest which cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive or legislative action.
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) vs Union of India (2018): SC upheld the fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest but ordered it to be regulated in such a way that they do not cause inconvenience to residents
RTI:
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal - 2019
office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) would constitute a public authority under the RTI Act.
RTE:
Unnikrishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) – RTE as FR.
The Supreme Court held that the right to primary education is implied by the fundamental right to life (Article 21) when read in conjunction with the directive principle on education (Article 41 and 45)
It held that every child or citizen of this country has a right to free education until he completes the age of 14 years.
Thereafter, his right to education is subject to the limits of economic capacity and development of the state (as per Article 41).
The court overruled its earlier judgement in Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka 1992 that there was a fundamental right to education up to any level including professional education like medicine and engineering.
In addition, the Court said that, in order to treat a right as fundamental right, it is not necessary that it should be expressly stated as one in Part III of the Constitution: “the provisions of Part III and Part IV are supplementary and complementary to each other”.
The state responded to this declaration nine years later by inserting, through the 86th amendment to Constitution (2002), Article 21-A, which provides for the fundamental right to education for children between the ages of six and fourteen.
Defamation:
Subramanian Swamy v Union of India – 2016
Dr. Subramanian Swamy challenged the constitutionality of the criminal defamation law in India, i.e., Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Section 499 defines defamation and Section 500 prescribes the punishment. Defamation is defined as spoken or written words or visible representations, concerning any person intended to harm his/her reputation. Exceptions to this include an ‘imputation of truth’ required for a ‘public good’, or the conduct of any person touching any public question, or expressing opinions on a public performance.
Court held that Section 499 is not an excessive restriction under Article 19(2). It held that criminal defamation is not a disproportionate restriction on free speech, because protection of reputation is a fundamental right as well as a human right.
reaffirmed the right to reputation as a part of the right to life under Article 21.
Using the principle of ‘balancing of fundamental rights’, the court held that the right to freedom and speech and expression cannot be “allowed so much room that even reputation of an individual which is a constituent of Article 21 would have no entry into that area”.
Sedition:
Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962) - SC upheld the constitutional validity of sedition (124A). SC has laid down 7 principles to reduce its misuse • 2 important principles
Comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal (security of state<public order<law and order)
A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder
P. Alavi v. State of Kerala (1982) - Sloganeering and criticizing of Parliament or the judicial setup do not amount to sedition.
Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab (1995): No matter how unpalatable the slogans (Khalistan Zindabad) are, they are not seditious unless and until they incite violence and disrupt the public order.
Ordinances:
R C Cooper vs Union of India (1970)
D C Wadhwa vs State of Bihar (1987)
Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar (2017)
Disability:
In Patan Jamal Vali vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2021) – SC issued guidelines to make our criminal justice system more disabled-friendly. SC also recognized the intersectional discrimination faced on multiple grounds (blind SC woman raped by a dominant caste man)
Judicial Activism:
Keshavananda Bharati Case 1973
Article 21 – Menaka Gandhi Case (1978)
Olga Tellis vs BMC 1985 – right to livelihood
Unni Krishnan Case (1993) – RTE as FR
Aruna Shanbaug vs UOI 2011
Samit Mehta vs Union of India (2016) – SC reaffirmed the “Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle” and also recognized Right to clean environment as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Puttaswamy case 2018
Right against the adverse effects of climate change
Vishaka Guidelines (1997)
S R Bommai vs Union of India 1994
Environmentalism
Arun gopal vs UOI 2017 – SC on Firecrackers; MC mehta vs UOI 2018 – SC on BS 4 vehicles in Delhi; M K Ranjitsinh vs UoI (2021) – over head cables for Great Indian Bustard
Judicial Adventurism
Keshavananda Bharati Case 1973 – 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act
Vishakha v/s State of Rajasthan case
Judicial overreach
Judicial overreach is when the judiciary starts interfering with the proper functioning of the legislative or executive organs - judiciary seems to have overstepped its mandate
Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2016) - Imposition of Patriotism in National Anthem Case.
2015 - Allahabad High Court order - children of public functionaries/ bureaucrats in Uttar Pradesh should be enrolled only in government schools.
Proactive Censorship in case of Jolly LLB 2 (Movie)
After the movie Jolly LLB 2 was certified by the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC), a petition was filed that the film involves defamation or contempt of court.
court-appointed a commission that looked into it, and finally, the commission ordered four cuts in the film
This was in violation of the Cinematograph Act, which does not give courts any power to certify or modify films
Ban on liquor - sale of liquor within 500 meters of national or state roadways
Arun Gopal v. Union of India (2017): fixed timings for setting off fireworks during Diwali and banned the use of polluting firecrackers
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2018): no BS-4 vehicles can be sold in Delhi, and only BS-6 vehicles can be sold
Vishakha v/s State of Rajasthan case
Judicial Restraint:
Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India 2018
Supriyo vs Union of India (2023) – SC refused to read words into SMA 1954 as it would amount to judicial legislation
Secularism:
Shirur Matt case (1957) - The test of Essential Religious Practices was first laid forth by the Supreme Court. The essential religious practices (ERP) doctrine governs which religious practices are protected under Arts. 25 & 26 of the Constitution
Seshammal and others vs State of Tamil Nadu (1972) - Held that appointment of Archakas to temple would be secular function and only performance of religious service by those priests would be a religious function
Sarla Mudgal vs Union of India (1995) – SC highlighted the need for UCC as the verdict discussed the issue of bigamy, the conflict between the personal laws on matters of marriage
Shayara Bano vs Union of India (2017) - The Supreme Court held that the practice of talaq-e-biddat or instantaneous triple talaq is unconstitutional.
Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v State of Kerala (2018) - The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Sabarimala Temple's custom of prohibiting women in their 'menstruating years' from entering.
UCC
Shah Bano Begum vs Mohmmad Ahmad Khan (1985)
Sarla Mudgal vs Union of India (1995)
Shayara Bano vs Union of India (2017)
Death penalty:
Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980)
Upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court stated that Section 302 did not violate Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Those convicted for murder, life imprisonment is the norm and death sentence is an exception.
SC announced important limitations on the death penalty by setting the “rarest of the rare” doctrine - rarest or the rare cases where the alternative opinion is unquestionably foreclosed
However, the Court clarified that it was necessary to take into account not just the circumstances of the crime but also the circumstances of the criminal. The Court listed out various aggravating and mitigating circumstances relevant when determining the death sentence. Examples of mitigating circumstances included the potential for reform and rehabilitation and the age of the accused.
Crimes which shake the conscience of the society
However, Bachan Singh’s case did not elaborate the criteria for identifying “rarest of rare” cases
Justice P.N. Bhagwati dissented, stating that Section 302 vested the Court’s with unfettered discretion in choosing between life imprisonment and the death penalty, and was therefore unconstitutional.
Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab (1983)
SC laid down five categories that Judges must take into account while imposing the death penalty—the manner in which the crime was committed, motive, the anti-social nature of the crime, the magnitude of the crime, and the personality of the victim.
A balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be struck, and the Court must take an overall view of the case’s circumstances.
Manoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (2022)
The Supreme Court issued practical guidelines for collecting mitigating circumstances during the trial stage. This included gathering information about the accused's jail conduct, behavior, and potential for rehabilitation.
Mercy petitions:
Dhana v State of West Bengal, 1994
SC held that “The power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution can be exercised by the Central and State Governments, not by the President or Governor on their own”
Kehar Singh vs Union of India (1988)
SC ruled that the President and Governors’ powers to decide on mercy petitions, held under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution respectively, were to be exercised differently from the power of the courts.
The President may decide differently from the courts and may grant an oral hearing to the convict. However, this oral hearing is not a right.
held that the grant of pardon by the President is an act of grace and, therefore, cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Further, courts cannot delve into the merits of the President’s decision, but they have the power to ensure that the President’s decision-making process is in accordance with procedural requirements and constitutional principles.
Shatrughan Chauhan v Union of India (2014)
SC held that inordinate delays in execution due to pending mercy petitions serve as grounds for commuting the death sentence.
Constitutional amendments – ratification by states
Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu (1992)
Struck down provisions excluding jurisdiction of all courts in 10th schedule for want for ratification by the states
Rajendra N Shah vs Union of India (2021)
Struck down provisions of state cooperative societies in Part XI B for not getting ratified by the states
Doctrine of severability - provisions for multi state cooperative societies in Part XI B remains operative
UDHR inspiration
Prem Shankar Shukla case (1980) - Right against handcuffing
Based on Article 5 of UDHR - No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Unnikrishnan vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) – RTE as FR
Based on Article 26 of UDHR - Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages
Justice K S Puttaswamy Case 2018
Article 12 of UDHR - No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy
PUCL vs Union of India (1996) - Right against tapping of telephonic conversation under Article 19 (1) (a)
Article 12 of UDHR - No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence
Indian Express Newspaper vs Union of India (1984) - Freedom of Press under Article 19
Article 19 of UDHR – Right to impart information and ideas through any media
Satwant Singh vs Assistant Passport Officer 1967 - Right to travel abroad under Article 21
Article 13 of UDHR - Everyone has the right to leave any country and to return to his country
Supriyo vs Union of India (2023) – ruled against fundamental right to marry
Article 16 of UDHR – right to marry and to found a family is a human right
