New Delhi: Describing the Supreme Court of India as the “world’s most vibrant and dynamic apex court,” Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna in a speech Tuesday listed in chronological order key judgments that have shaped Indian jurisprudence.
Speaking on the occasion of the top court completing 75 years, CJI Khanna compared these judgments to the rings of a mature tree, each marking a step in its growth.
“…these judgments reflect not just legal evolution, but our country’s very pulse,” he said.
ThePrint looks at the landmark judgments cited by CJI Khanna and how they molded Indian jurisprudence over the years.
Also Read: As SC Collegium considers proposal to tackle nepotism, how the bar views the possible move
1950s & 1960s: Laying the foundation
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950)
Delivered on 26 May 1950, this ruling—also known as the CrossRoads case—was the first significant ruling protecting free speech and limiting arbitrary use of State power in independent India.
The case stemmed from a challenge by Romesh Thapar, founder-editor of the journal CrossRoads, to the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, which banned the circulation of the journal in Madras.
The six-judge bench upheld the challenge and struck down the Act which empowered the State to censor expression in the interests of ‘public safety’ or ‘public order’. It held that the statutes did not fall within the scope of reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. In his speech Tuesday, CJI Khanna too affirmed that freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 is a right that could be restricted only under Article 19(2), which provides for certain reasonable restrictions.
Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1961)
In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the principle of res judicata, which implies that once a competent court has given a judgment, it is final and binding. The court saw this as key to maintaining law and order and clarified that any legal challenge to prior court decisions must be based on grounds different from the ones previously cited by petitioners.
The case pertained to a land tenancy dispute in western Uttar Pradesh. Petitioners in the case challenged an Allahabad High Court order on a plea under Article 226 in which the high court had upheld a decision by the Board of Revenue in favour of those in possession of the land.
Article 226 gives courts the power to issue writs with an aim to enforce fundamental rights.
The five-judge bench held that if a petition under Article 226 is considered on its merits and dismissed, the decision would be binding unless modified on appeal, which meant the petitioner could not move the Supreme Court under Article 32 with facts same as previously raised.
Also Read: 5 cases in 25 years of Internet that changed how India logs online
1970s & 1980s: Years of anchorage & discovery
Kesavananda and Ors v. State of Kerala (1973)
A 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court, the largest ever, heard the case challenging Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. Kesavananda Bharati, a Hindu monk, had challenged the law in 1970.
In the 1967 Golaknath case, the top court had ruled that Parliament cannot limit fundamental rights. Later, the 24th Amendment Act of 1971 was passed, allowing Parliament to limit even fundamental rights by adding new clauses to Articles 13 and 368.
In the Kesavananda Bharati case, when the 24th Amendment was challenged, the top court established the basic structure doctrine. It ruled that certain core features of the Constitution cannot be altered by way of amendments.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975)
In its judgment in this case, the Supreme Court stated that the rule of law and judicial review are key functions of a democracy, and Parliament cannot change these basic principles by simply amending laws. The case stemmed from a complaint filed against the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi for misuse of government resources and violation of the Representation of the People Act during her 1971 Lok Sabha election.
The Allahabad High Court found her guilty, declared her election void, and barred her from holding office or contesting elections for six years. Gandhi appealed to the Supreme Court, which temporarily allowed her to attend parliamentary proceedings without voting rights.
The 39th Constitutional Amendment, introduced during this time, prevented legal challenges to the Prime Minister’s election but was later challenged. The top court established that judicial review and free and fair elections were fundamental parts of the Constitution beyond the reach of the legislature’s amending powers.
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai (1976)
This judgment was crucial to the introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and marked a pivotal moment for the Indian labour movement.
Before 1965, small businesses offered workers an extra bonus as a goodwill gesture. But they stopped this practice, causing worker dissatisfaction.
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that technicalities should not prevent genuine issues from being heard, emphasizing justice over rigid procedures. The court recognized that legal systems should allow group representation, enabling organizations like unions to represent workers, even if they aren’t directly involved. This case also established the PIL as a legitimate and powerfool tool when a large group shared a common concern.
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)
This case marked a paradigm shift in the criminal justice system, overturning the ‘hands-off’ doctrine.
Sunil Batra, a death row convict at Tihar Central Jail, wrote a letter to a Supreme Court judge detailing the harsh living conditions and mistreatment of inmates. As a result, the court issued a notice to the Delhi government and officials concerned, seeking an explanation. The petitioner argued that Section 30(2) of the Prisons Act did not give jail authorities the right to keep a prisoner facing a death sentence in solitary confinement.
The top court held that Section 30(2) violated Article 21 because a prisoner’s freedoms can only be restricted when there is a clear legal basis for doing so. Since the provision lacked specific guidelines on when and why separate confinement could be imposed, it was deemed arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights remain with individuals even in prison, though they may be limited by incarceration.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this landmark case stands as a bulwark of the right to personal liberty granted by Article 21. In July 1977, Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded ‘in the public interest’ by authorities under the Passport Act, leading to a unanimous decision by a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
The court ruled that the goal should be to expand the scope of Fundamental Rights.
It emphasized that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interconnected and must be read together. Therefore, the procedure affecting any of the rights had to be ‘just, fair and reasonable’ and not ‘arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive’.
Hussainara Khatoon v. State Of Bihar (1979)
The Hussainara Khatoon case brought about a major shift in the Indian justice system. Until 1979, only individuals directly affected by the law or facing legal action could approach the courts. This case changed that, paving the way for a more accessible and inclusive legal system.
In 1979, Hussainara Khatoon filed a PIL against the home secretary of Bihar, highlighting the violation of prisoners’ right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court issued a writ of Habeas Corpus, which revealed that many prisoners, including Khatoon who had been detained for 4-5 years, were denied bail and remained in jail beyond their detention period.
The right to a speedy trial is part of Article 21 and must be accessible to all without discrimination, the top court said. It directed the state government and high court to compile a list of prisoners who had been detained beyond their legal period and denied bail. Moreover, the apex court declared that the right to free legal aid is an essential part of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
SP Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
Known as the “‘Judges’ Transfer Case,” it is a ruling that challenged the process for appointment of judges to high courts and the Supreme Court. The case also addressed the independence of the judiciary and the power of the Centre to transfer judges.
In this case, Advocate S.P. Gupta challenged the appointment of three additional high court judges, arguing that the process was influenced by the executive without proper judicial involvement. He also sought to make temporary judicial positions permanent.
The Supreme Court, in a majority judgment, interpreted the term “consultation” in Articles 124 and 217 to mean that while the President must consult the judiciary, their concurrence is not required. This decision gave the executive more control over judicial appointments, with the ultimate power resting with the President, despite the judiciary’s input.
Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar (1981)
Delivered on 6 May, 1981, this case not only addressed immediate injustices faced by under-trial prisoners in Bihar but also set a broader precedent for judicial accountability and efficiency across India.
On 6 May, 1981, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of under-trial prisoners in Bihar, many jailed without trial for years. The court ordered fast-tracking of cases in sessions courts for crimes committed before 31 December 1976, to be completed within six months, and inquiries in magistrates’ courts to be finished in three months.
It also called for legal aid for unrepresented prisoners and directed high courts to assess the judicial system, including the need for more courts.
Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)
The Supreme Court struck down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, which mandated the death penalty for anyone who committed murder while serving a life sentence. The court found it unconstitutional on the ground that it violated Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 14 (right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law).
The court ruled that the death penalty is valid but should only be applied in “rarest of rare” cases.
Also Read: Are courts awarding too many death sentences? 539 convicts on death row in 2022, highest in 17 yrs
1990s: Expansion of Fundamental Rights
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
This case was an example of judicial pragmatism in India, as it upheld the Mandal Commission’s recommendation for 27 percent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The Supreme Court upheld the government order to reserve 27 percent of central government jobs for OBCs, agreeing that caste could be a valid measure of backwardness.
A nine-judge bench emphasized that Article 16(4) (reservation) must be read in harmony with Article 16(1) (equality in public employment).
It also ruled that the “creamy layer” (wealthier or more educated individuals within the OBC community) should be excluded, and that the quotas should apply only to initial appointments, not promotions. The overall reserved quota should generally not exceed 50 percent, with the carry-forward rule applicable for unfilled vacancies, it ruled.
“A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that affirmative action is not an exception, but a tool for guaranteeing equality of opportunity,” said CJI Khanna in his speech Tuesday, referring to this judgment.
Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court examined the disputed question of whether the Constitution guarantees the right to education at every level.
The petitioner, Unnikrishnan J.P., raised concerns about the quality and sufficiency of education provided by the government and argued that the right to education should be recognized as a fundamental right under the Constitution. The top court ruled that the right to education is an extension of the right to life under Article 21.
Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994)
This judgment established important guidelines for the procedure of arrest. The Supreme Court observed that having the power to arrest is different from justifying its use.
Joginder Kumar, an advocate, was detained without charges or a warrant, prompting a writ petition under Article 32. The court emphasized that a police officer may have the power to arrest but an arrest should be made only after a reasonable satisfaction was reached as to the genuineness of the complaint, the individual’s involvement, and the need for arrest.
SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
The judgment aimed to prevent misuse of Article 356, which enables imposition of President’s Rule in a state in the event of failure of constitutional machinery. While the Constitution supports a strong center, it also promotes a balanced federal structure, a basic feature that cannot be altered—this was the core conclusion of the 9-judge bench, which also affirmed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court highlighted that Article 356 should be used carefully, following the views of Dr B.R. Ambedkar and recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission. According to Article 356(3), both houses of Parliament must closely examine the Presidential Proclamation. If not approved within two months, the proclamation is rendered invalid.
DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1996)
This case established guidelines for police to follow when making arrests and was a step in the direction of preventing custodial violence. D.K. Basu, executive chairman of Legal Aid Services in West Bengal, a non-political organization, wrote to the Supreme Court, citing news reports about deaths in police custody and lockups, urging the court to take note.
The Supreme Court referred to Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and reaffirmed that prisoners and detainees should not be deprived of Fundamental Rights under Article 21.
The court emphasized that only legal restrictions can limit enjoyment of these rights.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1997)
Bandhua Mukti Morcha filed a PIL against the Union of India, highlighting the widespread issue of bonded labor, particularly in the carpet industry of Uttar Pradesh.
The main contention of the petitioner group was that employing children in any industry, especially hazardous industries, violates Article 24 and goes against the mandates of Article 39(e) and (f), as well as the Preamble.
The Supreme Court held that the right to live with human dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21, and therefore, the State is obligated to actively identify and liberate bonded laborers, provide them with rehabilitation, and enforce the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. Further, the court also issued specific directives to state governments to implement measures to prevent and address bonded labor practices.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Various women’s groups, led by Naina Kapur and her organization Sakshi, filed a PIL against the state of Rajasthan and the central government to uphold the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
The writ petition was triggered by the gang rape of a social worker. While the criminal case was being handled separately, the incident highlighted the dangers faced by working women and the severity of sexual harassment. The court laid down essential guidelines for employers to prevent sexual harassment of women in the workplace.
Varnika Dhawan is an intern with ThePrint
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)