Important Judgements by the Supreme Court of India for Law Exams

The Indian Constitution, enacted in 1950, has served as the foundation of India’s democracy. It has been amended multiple times since it was enacted. The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, and it has been the defender of our constitutional rights and fundamental freedom through its creative and original interpretation. These important judgements by the Supreme Court should be regarded not just as precedents, but also as having established the law on critical issues—law that is binding on all courts and authorities throughout the country.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Important judgements by the Supreme Court

Theme – Basic Structure Doctrine

• It was exceptional in that it resulted in a shift in the democratic power balance. Earlier decisions had held that through a proper legislative process, Parliament may change even fundamental rights.
• However, the current decision held that Parliament cannot revise or change the constitution’s core structure, referred to as the “Basic Structure.”
• The Supreme Court also committed to itself the role of maintaining the integrity of the Indian Constitution in the Kesavananda Case.
• The court’s formulation of the “fundamental structure” theory constituted the zenith of judicial inventiveness and served as a model for other constitutional courts around the world.
• The argument said that even a constitutional amendment might be declared unconstitutional if it harmed the fundamental features—the core structure—of the Constitution.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Important Judgments by Supreme Court

Theme – Expanding the meaning of “right to life”

• Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty: “No one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with legal procedures.”
• In other words, if a legislation had been properly approved and enacted, judges could not challenge it as breaching the right to life or personal liberty.
• However, by granting itself the authority of substantive review under Article 21, the court shifted from being solely a supervisor to a constitutional watchdog.
• The Supreme Court’s decision in the Maneka Gandhi case basically meant that under Article 21, “procedure established by law” had the same meaning as “due process of law.”
  • The Supreme Court later announced that Article 21 would read as follows: ‘No one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty unless in accordance with a fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by legal legislation.’

Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)

Theme – Uniform Civil Code

• In the case of Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, the Supreme Court decided on the amount of support a divorced Muslim woman might get from her former husband in April 1985. (Shah Bano).
• It is seen as a watershed moment in the struggle for Muslim women’s rights in India, as well as the fight against established Muslim personal law. It paved the way for thousands of women to file credible claims that they had previously been denied.
• While the Supreme Court affirmed alimony rights in the case, the decision sparked a political conflict as well as a debate over the degree to which courts can intervene in Muslim personal law.
• This important judgements by the Supreme Court defined personal religious matters and uniform civil code.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Theme – Debating constitutionality of reservations

• The Supreme Court supported the government’s decision in the Indra Sawhney case (1992), ruling that the advanced parts of the OBCs (i.e., the creamy layer) must be omitted from the list of quota beneficiaries. It further said that for SCs and STs, the idea of a creamy layer must be avoided.
• The Indra Sawhney decision further said that reservations will be made only for initial appointments and not for promotions.
• However, the government amended the Constitution to add Article 16(4A), which allows the state to create provisions for reservation in terms of promotion for SC/ST personnel if the state believes they are underrepresented.
• The Supreme Court also set a 50 percent reservation quota in the ruling.
• Hence, this important judgements by the Supreme Court changed reservation system.

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

Theme – Prevent sexual harassment at workplace

• In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, judicial activism attained a zenith in the area of workplace sexual harassment of women (Vishaka).
• The Supreme Court’s decision was unprecedented for several reasons: it acknowledged and relied heavily on international treaties that had not been translated into Indian law; it provided the first authoritative definition of “sexual harassment” in India; and, faced with a statutory vacuum, it proposed the route of “judicial legislation.”
  • Because there was no law in India regarding workplace sexual harassment, the court held that it was free to interpret Articles 14, 15, 19, and 215 of the Constitution based on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW—signed by India in 1980).
• The court based its conclusion on various sources, including the Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, an Australian High Court decision, and its own previous judgements.
• Hence, this important judgements by the Supreme Court brought one of the important changes in the history of working women in India.

Supreme Court laid the following guidelines –

• The employer and/or other responsible people in a workplace are duty-bound to prevent or deter sexual harassment and set up processes to resolve, settle, or prosecute in such cases.
• For the first time in India, ‘sexual harassment’ was defined authoritatively.
  • The definition includes ‘such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication) such as: physical contact and advances, a demand or request for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, and any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature’.
• All employers and others in control of workplaces must make every effort to avoid sexual harassment, and if any conduct constitutes a specified offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or any other legislation, they must take proper steps to punish the perpetrators.
• Even if the behaviour is not regarded a criminal offence or a violation of service regulations, the employer should establish proper processes to address and resolve the complaint in a timely way.
• If required, a complaints committee, a particular counsellor, or other support services, such as ensuring confidentiality, must be provided via this complaint system. A woman should lead the complaints committee, and at least half of its members should be female.
• The company must educate female employees about their rights and responsibilities.
• Even if sexual harassment is the fault of a third party, the employer must take all reasonable efforts to assist the victim.
• The federal government and state governments should take appropriate steps to guarantee that private-sector employers follow the rules.