Know more about UPSC Syllabus and IAS Exam
Here we are giving the major cases and Important Supreme Court judgments for UPSC IAS
examination. Aspirants can go through the below table. This will be useful in UPSC IAS
prelims and mains exam preparation. If your optional subject for UPSC IAS Mains
Examination, click here to know more about Law syllabus.
Case Important Supreme Court judgments
Golaknath and State of Punjab Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not restrict any of the
1967 Fundamental Rights of individuals enshrined in the Constitution.
Keshavananda Bharti and State Golaknath case was overruled and parliament recaptured the
of Kerala 1973 power of amending and by virtue of the amending power cannot
change the basic structure of the constitution.
Minerva Mills and Union of Fortified the idea of the basic structure which was put forward
India 1980 earlier in the Keshavananda Bharti Case.
Waman Rao and Union of India This case has facilitated in determining a satisfactory way of
1981 addressing grievances pertaining to the violation of fundamental
rights.
Mohd Ahmed Khan and Shah This case challenged the Muslim petition law.
Bano Begum 1985
MC Mehta and Union Of India Enlarged the scope and sphere of Article 32 and Article 21 to
1986 incorporate the right to healthy and pollution-free environment.
Indra Sawhney and Union of It defined the “creamy layer” criteria and uphold the execution of
India 1992 the recommendations made by the Mandal Commission
First Judges Case or S.P. Gupta The ruling gave the Executive dominance over the Judiciary in
case 1981 judicial appointments for the next 12 years
Second Judges Case or Supreme The majority verdict gave back Chief Justice of India’s power over
Court Advocates on Record judicial appointments and transfers.
Association versus Union of
India 1993
Three judges case or Special Chief Justice of India must check with a plurality of four senior-
Reference case of 1998 most Supreme Court judges to shape his opinion on judicial
appointments and transfers.
SR Bommai and Union of India This has created major repercussion on Center-State relations
1994
Vishaka and State of Rajasthan Introduction of Vishaka Guidelines and provided basic definitions
1997 of sexual harassment at the workplace
Samatha and State of Andhra SC declared that the forest land, tribal land, and government land,
Pradesh 1997 in scheduled areas could not be leased to private companies or
non-tribal for industrial operations. Such activity is only
permissible to a government undertaking and tribal people.
I.R Coelho and State of Tamil If a law is included in the 9th schedule of the Indian constitution, it
Nadu 2007 can still be examined and confronted in court.
Section 377 case 2009 The Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 declared as
unconstitutional. The same was reversed by the Supreme Court in
2013.
Pedophilia case 2011 SC declared that the Children are the endowment to humanity. The
sexual abuse of children is one of the most monstrous
transgressions.
NOTA- None-Of-The-Above An option of not voting for any candidate was given if they don’t
Judgment 2013 find any of the apt candidates.
Lily Thomas and Union Of India SC ruled that any Member of the legislative assembly, Member of a
2013 legislative council or Member of Parliament who was found guilty
of a crime and given a minimum of two-year imprisonment, would
lose membership of the House with an immediate effect.
Nirbhaya case March 2014 Introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and
definition of rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Penal
Code, 1860 and Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973.
National Legal Services This case resulted in the recognition of transgender persons as a
Authority and Union of India third gender. SC also instructed the government to treat them as
April 2014 minorities and expand the reservations in education, jobs,
education etc
Shreya Singhal and Union of The controversial section 66A of the Information Technology Act
India 2015 which permitted arrests for unpleasant content posted on the
internet was struck down as unconstitutional.
Aruna Shanbaug Case Along with guideline supreme court allowed passive euthanasia in
the country.
A.K. Gopalan Case (1950): (Interpreted key Fundamental Rights including Article 19 and 21)
This is a significant decision of the Supreme Court because it represented the first case where the court
meaningfully examined and interpreted key fundamental rights enlisted in the constitution including
article 19 and 21. The contention was whether, under the writ of habeas corpus and the provisions of
the preventive detention act, there was a violation of the fundamental rights entitled in article 13, 19, 21
and 22.
Best websites for IAS
The Supreme Court restricted the scope of fundamental rights by reading them in isolation of article 21
and 22 which provided guidelines for preventive detention. The Supreme Court iterated that the term
‘due process’ prevented the courts from engaging in substantive due process analysis in determining the
reasonableness of the level of the process provided by the Legislature.
Shankari Prasad Case (1951): (Amendability of Fundamental Rights)
In this case, the validity of the first constitutional amendment which added Article 31-A and 31-B of the
Constitution was challenged. The first time, the question whether fundamental rights can be amended
under Article 368 came for consideration of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court rejected the contention that in so far as the First Amendment took away or abridged
the fundamental rights conferred by Part III it should not be upheld in the light of the provisions of
article 13(2).
Therefore "law" in article 13 must be taken to mean rules or regulations made in the exercise of
ordinary legislative power and not amendments to the Constitution made in the exercise of constituent
power. Article 13 (2) did not affect amendments made under article 368.
Berubari Union case (1960): (Parliament's power to make amendments under Article 3 and
Article 368)
In this case, conflict arose regarding the power of the parliament to transfer the territory of Berubari to
Pakistan. The detailed examination of article 3 was done by the Supreme Court on a reference made by
the President in 1960. The Supreme Court held that the Parliament of India is not competent to make a
law under article 3 for the implementation of the Nehru-Noon Agreement.
This was followed by an amendment of the constitution by parliament using the power of Article 368.
The result was the Constitution (9th Amendment) Act 1960. The Supreme Court gave a very narrow
judgement that the preamble was not an integral part of the constitution and therefore it is not
enforceable in a court of law.
10 Topics asked every year in IAS Exam
I. C. Golaknath case (1967): (Validity of the First and Seventeenth Amendments and described
the scope of Article 13)
The validity of the First and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution in so far as they affect the
fundamental rights was again challenged is this case. The fourth amendment was also challenged.
The Supreme Court adopted a doctrine of prospective overruling under which the three constitutional
amendments concerned would continue to be valid. Moreover, the Supreme Court held that article 368
dealt only with the procedure for amendment and an amendment to the Constitution is made as part of
the normal legislative process. It is, therefore, a "law" for the purpose of article 13 (2).
To get over the decision of the Supreme Court in Golaknath’s case the Constitution 24th Amendment
Act was passed in 1971 in which changes to articles 13 and 368 was made.
Kesvananda Bharti case (1973): (Defined the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution)
The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in Golaknath v. The state of Punjab and considered the
validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th Amendments. The Court held that although no part of the
constitution, including fundamental rights, was beyond the amending power of Parliament, the "basic
structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.
It is a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India, and is the basis in Indian law for the exercise
of the Indian judicial of the power to judicially review, and strike down amendments to the Constitution
of India passed by the Indian Parliament which conflict with the Constitution's basic structure.
The judgment also defined the extent to which the Indian Parliament could restrict the right to property,
in pursuit of land reform and the redistribution of large landholdings to cultivators, overruling previous
decisions that suggested that the right to property could not be restricted.
Best Books for IAS Exam
Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan case (1975): (Disputes relating to elections involving the Prime
Minister of India)
The concept of basic structure was reaffirmed in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan case. The Supreme
Court applied the theory of basic structure and struck down Clause(4) of article 329-A, which was
inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975 on the ground that it was beyond the amending power of the
parliament as it destroyed the basic feature of the constitution.
The amendment was made to the jurisdiction of all courts, including the Supreme Court, over disputes
relating to elections involving the Prime Minister of India. Some basic features of the Constitution were
listed in this case which is considered as unamendable such as sovereign democratic republic status,
equality of status and opportunity of an individual, secularism and freedom of conscience and religion
and rule of law.
Menaka Gandhi case (1978): (Significant towards the transformation of the judicial review on
Article 21)
This case is a landmark judgement which played the most significant role towards the transformation of
the judicial view on Article 21 of the Constitution of India so as to imply many more fundamental rights
from article 21. A writ petition was filed by Maneka Gandhi under Article 32 of the Constitution in the
Supreme Court.
The main issues of this case were whether the right to go abroad is a part of the right to personal liberty
under Article 21 and whether the Passport Act prescribes a ‘procedure’ as required by Article 21 before
depriving a person of the right guaranteed under the said article.
A new doctrine of a post-decision theory was evolved and the most significant interpretation was made
on the interconnections between the three articles 14, 19 and 21.
It was finally held by the court that the right to travel and go outside the country is included in the right
to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. The Court ruled that the mere existence of an enabling
law was not enough to restrain personal liberty. Such a law must also be “just, fair and reasonable”.
Various Social Welfare Schemes of Government
Minerva mills case (1980): (Basic Structure which includes Parliament's power to amend and
the power of Judicial Review)
In this case, the validity of the 42nd amendment act was challenged on the ground that they are
violative of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. The Supreme Court struck down clauses (4) and (5)
of the article 368 and it was ruled by the court that a limited amending power itself is a basic feature of
the Constitution. The court held that the amendment made to Article 31C is invalid on the ground that
they violate two basic features of the Constitution that are the limited nature of the parliament of the
power to amend and the power of judicial review.
The Judgement of the Supreme Court thus makes it clear that the Constitution is the Supreme, not the
Parliament. Parliament cannot have unlimited amending power so as to damage or destroy the
Constitution to which it owes its existence and also derives its power from.
Waman Rao Case (1981): (Validity of 9th Schedule and demarcarting the date of 24th april
1973)
Supreme Court in Waman Rao case once again reiterated and applied the doctrine of the basic features
of the Constitution. In this case, the implications of the basic structure doctrine for Article31-B were re-
examined. The Court drew a line of demarcation on April 24th, 1973 (the date of Kesavananda Bharti’s
decision) and held it should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to
the Constitution, which took place prior to 24-04-1973. It meant all the amendments which added to the
Ninth Schedule before that date were valid.
All future amendments were held to be challengeable on the grounds that the Acts and Regulations,
which they inserted in the Ninth Schedule, damaged the basic structure. The decision of this case is a
landmark one in the constitutional jurisprudence of India. This case has helped in determining a
satisfactory method of preserving the settled position and to address grievances pertaining to the
violation of fundamental rights.
S. R. Bommai case (1994): (Misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution of India)
S. R. Bommai case was a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India, where the Court discussed
provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India and related issues. This case had a huge impact on
Centre-State Relations. The judgement attempted to curb blatant misuse of Article 356 of the
Constitution of India, which allowed President's rule to be imposed on state governments.
R. Bommai v. The Union of India raised a serious question of law relating to the Proclamation of
President's Rule and dissolution of Legislative assemblies according to Article 356 of the Constitution of
India. This verdict stopped the misuse of Article 356 (imposition of the president rule).
Conclusion:
