TOP 10 LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court of India is the highest court of law and the most important part of the Constitution which is the Legislature. It always works when the Executive crosses its lines and can make a mistake. See the top seven judgments that describe the future of Indian Democracy.
Top 10 Historical landmark Judgments
1. A.K Gopalan vs. State of Madras, 1950:
Problem details:
AK Gopalan was a Communist leader. He was detained in the Madras prison in 1950 under the Detention Act. In the text of Habeas Corpus and in accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution – he examined his detention. He further added that sections 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the Act violate Articles 13, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. According to his competition the Act should state what values are respected under the Constitution of India.
The Advocate went on to raise the issue of the ‘solution-oriented approach’ of the Indian Constitution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court of India stated that Article 22 of the Constitution of India was an independent code. It states that Gopalan has complied with the law.
The court further stated that if a person’s freedom is taken away by the State in accordance with the law established by law, he will not be held accountable for ignoring the provisions contained in Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has expressed a prohibited opinion in Article 21 in this case. While implementing the strict regulation, the zenith court declared that section 14 was invalid as it found it unconstitutional and violated fundamental rights. The Court ruled that the rule of law (the system was transparent) required fair treatment and freedom on the world stage. The Court also ruled that their arrest was legal, so a written statement should be dismissed.
2. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru vs. State of Kerala, 1973
<
Problem details:
It is one of the most memorable cases of the Indian Judicial system. It was installed in 1970. Keshvananda Bharati was the chief of Edneer Mutt. Religious group in Kasaragod, Kerala. Barat had several pieces of land in his name. It was then that the state government of Kerala introduced the Land Amendment Act, 1969.
While the application was pending in court, many amendments had already been made by the Government following the trial of Golaknath v. State of Punjab.
Judgment:
The 13-judge Constitutional bench of the apec court in the 7: 6 ratio, rendered a landmark decision in the case. It outlined the basic teachings of the draft Constitution and gave it stability.
The SC also held that not a single piece of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, was beyond the power of amendment in Parliament, however, “the constitutional structure must not be demolished even by a constitutional amendment.”
Barat lost his case in part, but the case became the savior of India’s democracy and saved the Constitution from losing its spirit.
3. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India in 1977
Problem details:
In 1977, the passport of Maneka Gandhi, daughter-in-law of Late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was confiscated by the ruling Janta Party Government. He appealed to the Supreme Court against the order.
Judgment:
The court did not change the government’s order in the case, however, the decision has far-reaching benefits. The seven-judge panel stated that citizens have a right to personal liberty (Article 21 of the Constitution), which is an important example of good basic justice.
The case and the verdict have been pointed out 215 times by other judges of the Supreme Court in their judgment.
According to Justice Chandra, “The case of Maneka Gandhi brought about a change in the legal system in the late 1970s, the Supreme Court played a major role and sought to establish its legitimacy after the emergency.”
The Supreme Court was widely criticized for failing to protect the freedoms and values of the constitution during the Emergency.
4. Shayara Bano vs Union of India & Others in 2017
In 2016, Shayara Bano was divorced by Rizwan Ahmad after 15 years of marriage using talaq fast method or talaq -e bidat. A written petition was filed in the Supreme Court for the detention of talaq-e-biddat, polygamy, and illegal acts committed in the Islamic Community as unconstitutional.
Bano also alleged that such practices violated articles 14, 15, 21, 25 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment:
The Union of India and women’s rights groups such as the Bebaak Collective and Bartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) have backed Shayara Bano’s application. They agreed that such practices should be declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court established a five-judge constitutional bench after the application was approved. The SC pointed out that talaq three times by any means was illegal. It also declared a three-fold fast talaq as unconstitutional. On 22nd August 2017, a high court announced the official ban on Triple Talaq for more than three years in prison by her husband.
5. SR Bommai vs. Union of India in 1994
Problem details:
S.R. Bommai was the Prime Minister of Janata Dal. He was in office in Karnataka between August 13, 1988, and April 21, 1989. On April 21, 1989, state law was repealed and quoted Article 356 of the State Emergency Constitution or more commonly known as the President’s Rule. This strategy was widely used to keep opposition groups under control. Bommai has moved to the Karnataka High Court challenging the Governor’s decision to recommend Article 356 to the state.
Judgment:
The Karnataka High Court has rejected his appeal. Thereafter, the minister took the case to the Supreme Court. It was the Constitutional Bench formed by nine judges of the Supreme Court that issued this historic order on March 11, 1994.
The ruling stated that the President’s ability to oust the State government was incomplete. He added that the President should only use it after it has been approved by both houses of Parliament.
It allowed the President to appoint only the Legislature until then. The resolution read, “The dissolution of the Legislature is not a matter of fact.
This judgment is significant because it eliminates the need for the State’s expulsion from state under Article 356.
6. Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India in 2018
Problem details:
Navtej Johar and five others of the LGBT community filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in June 2016. On September 6, 2018, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was unanimously voted against by five – Judge Bench.
Judgment:
The court allowed a consensus relationship between the people of the LGBT community which made it one of the highest court decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the choice of LGBT people to enter into same-sex relationships is their choice. They are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
The Apex court also terminated the same-sex relationship during the agreement. The Court, however, upheld the provisions of Section 377 which criminalize animal rights.
7.Indra Sawhney Nabanye vs. Union of India &
Others
Problem details:
The case highlighted a major problem. India’s constitution saw social and educational decline, however, economic recession was not missed. In 1993, Indira Sawhney filed a lawsuit against the Government of Narasimha Rao. The case was against the Government for allowing only 10% of the reversal of the economic status of the elite in the various spheres of government.
Judgment:
In its decision-making process, the Supreme Court ruled that a 50% cap would be installed at the reservations.
The high court also approved separate bookings for OBCs in central government services but left a creamy layer. The Judgment also stipulated that the reservation of the appointment under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution would no longer apply to the promotion. Judgment was instituted, with 27% government reservations in the middle of the OBCs. The decision was not followed in many provinces and was re-pressed in 1989.
8. The case of Romesh Thapar (1950)
Here, the SC holds that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of expression which can only be guaranteed through broadcasting.
9. The case of the Habeas corpus (1976)
Judgement
The highly criticized SC verdict, in which most of the decision is against individual freedom and appears to favor the state. Justice Khanna’s argument is also well known
10. Puttuswamy’s case (2017)
Judgement
This SC judgment protects individual rights by invading human privacy.
