Magna Carta Mains 2025

Mains Concise Note (MCN) 1 : Preamble

First to be moved in Constituent Assembly as Objectives Resolution, last to be added to the final draft, the
Preamble witnessed evolution even before it was born (Anecdotal + Historical)

Though not having any independent legal status of its own, the Preamble has been referred to derive
Intros constitutional intent in several seminal constitutional cases such as Property Owners Case, Electoral Bonds,
EWS Reservation, Sabrimala, Privacy etc. (Contextual)

Identity Card - N. Palkhiwala, Political Horoscope - K.M. Munshi

Reflections/Justifications

State Centric Terms Citizen Centric Terms

1. Sovereign 1. Justice
a. Non Interference - National Interest a. Addressing root cause of inequality
i. Op. Sindoor, Surgical Strikes, Galwan Valley, i. Social - Affirmative Action, Reservation in edu
Dev of Nuclear Power, Rohingya Resettlement and employment, SC/ST Atrocities,
ii. India’s position - Russia - Ukraine, Israel - ii. Economic - DPSPs, Subsidies, Int. Subvention
Palestine Conflict iii. Political - Legislative Reservation for Women,
iii. Doctrine of Parens Patriae - State is a parent SC, ST etc.
iv. Parl can make extra territorially applicable laws 2. Liberty
(Art 245/246) a. Self Development with minimal restraints
2. Socialist i. Expansion of Art 19 and Art 21.
a. Conservative/State Led - Participative ii. Protecting Inter Faith Marriages
i. FYPs, PC - Niti Aayog 3. Equality
ii. IPR 1950s - Nationalisation - LPG a. Non Discriminatory & Distributive,
iii. FDI, PLI, MGNREGA, Lakhpati Didi, Food i. EBL + EPL
Security, Housing, RTE, PM JAY, ONDC, ii. Equal Pay for Equal Work
iv. Regulatory Governance, CSR 4. Fraternity
3. Secular a. Collective Belonging
a. Balancing liberty, equality, neutrality i. Untouchability, Human Exploitation
i. Essential Practices Doctrine 5. Individual Dignity
ii. Triple Talaq, Waqf, Sabrimala, Conversions, a. Elected Head of State
Management of Temples/Shrines i. Strict anti lynching provisions in new BNS,
iii. Govt funding for major religious events protection of LGBTQ+ rights
4. Democratic
a. Representation & Responsible Govt
i. MCC, Voter Inclusivity, ONOE, Electoral Bonds,
RTI
ii. Local Self Govt
5. Republic Basic Structure Case
a. Elected Head of State Initially sourced most of the ingredients of doctrine
i. Pres constitutionally bound by CoM Advice from the objectives of the Preamble, which means
(Art 75) the Preamble can be amended without changing
ii. Governor’s Veto Powers Timelines their objectives in a manner that violates basic
structure.
Status & Utility
0) Constitutional Interpretation :
(196 Ca
se
ase i
art Property Owners Assn v. State of MH (2024)
ionC a Bh not all privately owned property is a "material
ri U
n nd )
ba avana 1973 resource of the community"
ru Ke
s (
Be
Re: Statutory Interpretation :
ADR v. UoI (2024) : Electoral Bonds - Democracy
Part of CoI - X Integral Part of CoI -
Intl. Ratification Interpretation :
Source of Power - X Source of Power - X
Vishaka v. State of RJ (1997) - CEDAW

Justice Gajendra Gatkar while delivering the judgement in Berubari Union referred to the Preamble as the key to open the mind
of the makers of this beautiful Constitution and the Preamble has done just that by assisting in constitutional and statutory
interpretations as well international documentary ratifications made by India.

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 2 : Freedoms (Art 19)
Freedom of opinion and freedom of association are the two lungs that are absolutely necessary
for a man to breathe the oxygen of liberty. - Gandhi - 36th Congress Session (1921) (Quote)
World Press Freedom Index 2024/25 : 151/180
(Data)
Intros Lowest Internet Shutdowns since 2020 - 96 per year
Longest rights and restrictions, heavily derived by the Courts with several US, UK Court Laid down tests
Despite its broad coverage, mostly evolved as a pro democracy, press, dissent, speech right. (Analytical)
1.Ashoka Uni Prof Social Media Post on Op. Sindoor
2.Wikimedia Foundation Case
Contemporary Developments 3.India’s Got Latent - Vulgarity & Obscenity
4.Vikatan Magazine - Cartoon
5.SC quashed a case against a MP for a poem
6.Bom HC Struck down Fact Check Unit (IT Rules)
7.Samsung TN Workers Right to Unionise
8.US revoking overseas Student Visas

Right Jurisprudence

Speech & 1. Speech (Dissent)

Expression [Art. a. Protest -
19(1)(a)] i. ‘Heckler’s Veto’ - US SC Test (1966), Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012) : Implied FR
ii. Amit Sahni v. Delhi Police Commissioner (2020) (CAA, 2019 - Shaheen Bagh Protest)
Restriction 1. Upheld right to protest; No Right to Protest Indefinitely, Should be balanced with
other rights
1. Sovereignty &
b. Strike - T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2003) - Not a FR or SR
Integrity
c. Hate Speech - Not defined specifically, s. 196 BNS
2. Security
d. Sedition - BNS does not use the term Sedition but enhances its scope
3. Foreign Friendly
2. Expression (Censor)
Relations
a. Press -
4. Public Order
i. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) - Freedom to Publish
5. Decency/Morality
ii. Sakal Papers Ltd. v. UoI (1962) - Freedom to propagate
6. Contempt of Court
iii. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. UoI (1972) - both qualitative and quantitive
7. Defamation
b. Print -
8. Offence Incitement
i. Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL (1995) - Includes commercial speech
c. Films
Laws i. Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of MH (1964) - narrow UK Hicklin test
ii. K.A. Abbas v. UoI (1971) - films to be treated separately
1. BNS iii. Aveek Sarkar v. WB (2004) (US Roth test) Community Standards Test
2. IT Act & Rules d. Broadcasting
3. Indecent i. Secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Assn of WB (1995) -
Representation of access to telecasting subject to limitations on account of the use of public property
Women (Prohibition e. Digital Media
Act), 1986 i. Shreya Singhal v Union of India, 2015 - Sec 66A IT Act
3. Right to Know - Right to Information
a. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975)
4. Right to Silence - Re: Noise Pollution (2005), Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of KL (1986)
5. Specific Applications
a. Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004) - Flying the national flag
b. Maneka Gandhi v. UoI (1978) - Right to Travel Abroad
c. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) - Against arbitrary internet shutdowns
d. Kaushal Kishore vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2023) - Against Non State Actors
6. Restrictions - State of Madras v. V.G. Row (1952) : test of specific reasonableness applicable
a. Sovereignty & Integrity/Security - PUCL v. Union of India (1997) : Phone Tapping
b. Contempt - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
c. Defamation - Subramanian Swamy (2014) - Upheld criminalisation of Defamation
d. Privileges - Searchlight Case - MP/MLA FoE > Citizen FoE

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 2 : Freedoms (Art 19)

Right Jurisprudence
Peaceful Assembly 1. Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961) : procession through public roads subject of
without arms [Art. course to directions of the Magistrate so as not to be a threat to public peace and order.
19(1)(b)] 2. Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (1973) : power to regulate
meetings and processions but does not authorise to prohibit all meetings and processions.
3. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) v UoI (2018) : right to assembly & peaceful protest
Restriction 4. In Natasha Narwal vs State, 2023 : protest cant be termed as a terror act under UAPA
5. The Police Act 1861, Sec 163 BNSS (s. 144 CrPC), The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act
1. Sovereignty &
1958
Integrity
2. Public Order

Right Jurisprudence
Associations,
Unions, Co-op 1. Tika Ramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh(1955) : Right to not join
[Art. 19(1)(c)] 2. Zoroastrian Coop Housing Society v District Registrar (2005) : No FR to be a member
3. Raghubir Dayal Jai Prakash v Union of India (1968) : No right to fulfil objectives
Restriction
1. Sovereignty &
Integrity
2. Public Order
3. Morality

Right Jurisprudence
Movement 1. AK Gopalan v State of Madras (1950) : No effect on preventive detention laws
[Art. 19(1)(d)] 2. Smt. Kaushailiya v. State, (1961) : movement of sex workers can be restricted on grounds of
– public health and moral
Reside & Settle 3. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963) : psychological inhibition against movement
[Art. 19(1)(e)] 4. Rajneesh Kapoor v. Union of India (2007) : requirement of wearing helmet is not a restriction
on free movement of citizen
Restriction 5. ILP, Epidemic Diseases Act, Disaster Management Act, Sec 163 BNSS, Goonda Acts

1. General Public
Interest
2. Protection of
ST

Right Jurisprudence
Profession, 1. State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla(1957) : Crime cannot be a business
Occupation, Trade, 2. Sadan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee (1989) : Hawkers subject to laws
Business 3. Khoday Distilleries v. State of Karnataka (1995) : no right to trade or business in intoxicating
[Art. 19(1)(g)] liquors. reference to Art 47 (DPSP)
4. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka(2002) : Edu is a charitable activity/occupation
Restriction
1. General Public
Interest
2. Qualifications
3. Nationalisation

The essence of Article 19 lies in its dual commitment: to individual liberty and to the collective good. It celebrates the right to think,
speak, write, assemble, and protest—core tenets of a vibrant democracy.
The true test of a democracy is not in how it grants rights, but in how it restrains power. The balance, therefore, must not be
mechanical, but moral and constitutional—one that ensures liberty does not descend into license, nor order into oppression. Only
then can Article 19 be what it was always meant to be: the lifeblood of Indian democracy.

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 3 : Digital Media Regulation

State of India’s Digital Economy Report 2024, India is the third largest digitalised country
Intros
2nd Largest mobile cellular connections (1.14 Billion), 2nd Largest 5G Market

IT Act & IT Rules

1. Framework
a. Section 69A (Blocking of Content):
i. Central and State governments - power to direct any agency or intermediary to block public access to
information on grounds such as sovereignty, security, public order, and friendly relations with foreign states.
ii. The government’s powers under Section 69A were upheld by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of
India (2015), but the Court insisted on strict adherence to procedural safeguards
b. Section 79 (Safe Harbour for Intermediaries):
i. Provides exemption from liability for intermediaries (such as social media platforms) for third-party content,
provided they observe due diligence and comply with government directions to remove unlawful content.
ii. Section 79(3) removes this immunity if the intermediary fails to act on government or court orders to take down
illegal content, or if it is found to be actively involved in unlawful acts.
c. IT Rules, 2021:
i. Enacted under the powers of Sections 69A, 79, and 87, these rules mandate self-regulation, content
classification, grievance redressal mechanisms, and compliance with a code of ethics for digital media and OTT
platforms.
ii. Intermediaries, such as social media platforms, are mandated to remove or disable access to certain content
within 24 hours of receiving actual knowledge through a court Order or notification from appropriate
government agencies, as specified under Rule 3(1)(d).
iii. Failure to comply can result in loss of safe harbour protection, exposing intermediaries to legal liability
2. Issues :
a. Balancing Free Speech and Regulation
b. Regulatory Uncertainty
c. Ambiguity in Definitions
d. Overreach of Executive Power
e. Enforcement Difficulties
f. Global Coordination
g. No right to hearing for the content creator
3. Way Forward :
a. Comprehensive Digital Media Law
b. Strengthening Procedural Safeguards
c. Stakeholder Engagement
d. Promoting Self-Regulation
e. Media Literacy and Public Awareness
f. International Cooperation
g. Periodic Review
h. Promote Digital Literacy

In an era where digital media has become the new public square, the challenge is not merely of regulation, but of
preservation with prudence. While the unbridled flow of information empowers democracy, unchecked content can just
as swiftly undermine it through hate, misinformation, and manipulation. Yet, regulation must not become a cloak for
censorship, nor should the fear of misuse justify the stifling of dissent.
Ultimately, the goal must be to foster a digital ecosystem that is as accountable as it is open, as secure as it is plural,
where freedom of speech is not a casualty of regulation, but its most protected outcome.

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 4 : Life & Liberty

The true test of a just society is not how it protects the powerful, but how fiercely it guards the life and
Intro
liberty of each person—especially against the might of the State

Art 21 Art 19 Art 14

Right Life Personal Liberty Freedoms Equality Equal Protection

Before Law of Law
Dignity
Expansion
Privacy

Procedure Estd. By Law Reasonable Reasonable Classification

Restrictions &
Restriction Due Process Of Law Intelligible Rational
Test of
Differentia Nexus
Principles of Natural Justice Reasonableness

ARBITRARINESS

Life & Death Criminal Justice Socio Economic

Minimum Wages
Passive Euthanasia Free Legal Aid PUDR v. UoI (1982)
Aruna Shanbaug v. Hoskot v. MH (1978) Human Dignity sans exploit
UoI (2011) Speedy Trial Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UoI (1984)
Living Will Hussainara Khatoon v. Livelihood
Common Cause v. BH (1979) Olga Tellis v. BMC (1985)
UoI (2018) Anti-hand cuffing Education
Prem Shankar v. Delhi Mohini Jain v. KN (1991)
Admin (1980) Health & Medical Care
Anti Delay in Death Consumer Education and Research Centre v. UoI
Sentence Execution (1995)
Maneka Gandhi v. UoI (1978) Shelter
T.V. Vatheeswaran v.
State of TN (1981) Chameli Singh v. UP (1996)
Issues concerning both 19 &
Free & Fair Trial Workplace Sexual Harassment
21 : 14, 19, 21 should not be
DLF v. Central Vishaka v. RJ (1997)
violated
Coalfields (2009) Right to Sleep
Issues concerning only 21 :
Ramlila Maidan (2012)
14 and 21 should not be
Third Gender
violated Environment
NALSA v. UoI (2014)
Climate Change Right to Marry
Ranjitsinh & Ors. v. UoI Ajay Hasia (1981)
(2024) Adultery Decriminalised
Healthy Env. Joseph Shine v. UoI (2019)
Research Foundation v. Homosexuality Decriminalised
UoI (2005) Navtej Singh Johar v. UoI (2019)
Protection of Env Food
Animal and Env Legal PUCL v. UoI (2003)
Defence Fund v. UoI Water
(1997) Susetha v. TN (2006)
Pollution Free Air Accessibility
Subhash Kr. v. BH (1991) Rajiv Raturi v. UoI (2024)
Clean Environment
MC Mehta v. UoI(1986)

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 5 : Privacy

Privacy

In a democracy like India—diverse, vocal, and increasingly digitized—the right to privacy is not merely a legal shield but a
philosophical cornerstone. It redefines how citizens engage with technology, government, and each other, demanding a new
social contract grounded in trust, transparency, and respect for individuality.

50
) 7) 9) ion Possible Implications
(19 954) (201 01 ect
n oI (2 ot
ala (1 v. U rt Pr
G op ndra 962) ay R epo Data Data/Informational Privacy
AK Cha gh (1 usw na al 3
tt sh on 2 Surveillance
ish in ) Pu iK
ri ers ct, 20
Sat arak S td Sr
ital P A Physical Privacy
Re J.
Kh J. ( Dig Ambush Journalism
Decisional Privacy
Part of CoI - X FR u/Art 21 + 19 Digital Privacy Comprehensive LGBTQIA+ Rights
Source of Power - X Proportionality Test Legislation Proprietary Privacy
Identity Theft
Impact

Digital : Right to be Forgotten, Deemed Consent, First Origin Message (IT Rules)

Good Governance : RTI Exclusion, Right to Know

Challenges
Welfare : UWin, Aarogya Setu, Aadhar Voter Linkage

Security : Facial Recognition, 2024 Interception Rules

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

Reach : DPDP Act applies to two scenarios:

(i) processing of digital personal data within India
(ii) processing outside India when it is connected to offering goods or services to individuals in India.
Consent : Consent must be free, specific, informed, unconditional, and unambiguous, backed by a clear affirmative action
unless deemed (Govt or Medical)
Components
Data Principals: Rights to modify, delete, update, and revoke consent for your data’s use.
Data Fiduciaries: Tiered system of obligations, recognizing that a neighbourhood grocery store’s data handling needs
differ from those of a social media giant
Data Processors : Contractually bound to maintain security, confidentiality, and legal compliance.
Consent Managers : Professional privacy intermediaries who help you manage your consent across different platforms
Data Protection Board : Investigate violations, impose penalties, and oversee compliance
Security : mandating encryption, masking, and vulnerability audits.
Analysis :
Selectively open approach to cross-border transfers—neither a free-for-all nor an outright blockade
the government can impose a ‘no-fly list’ for data
data can only be sent to jurisdictions with comparable privacy protections
18 as the age of consent for data processing
Way Forward :
Success depends on balancing practicality with protection, and the DPB will play a pivotal role.
The new law may not be perfect, but it is an important step toward creating a more privacy-conscious digital India. As
we move forward, we will need continuous dialogue between regulators, businesses, and citizens to refine this
framework

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 6 : Amendments

Limiting Parl’s
Land Reforms
Power to Amend
impacting Property
CoI
Rights Given effect
through Creation of
Constitutional Affecting FRs Basic Structure
Amendments & Doctrine
Laws
Nationalisation Harmonising FRs
Policies and DPSPs

Parliament’s Power to Amend the Constitution

In a parliamentary democracy limited by the CoI, the extent to which the CoI can be amended determines a
delicate balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy
Intro
The power to amend the CoI is referred to as Constituent power and is specially at the behest of the Parliament
under Art 368 and not under legislative division of powers under VII Schedule.
The CoI does not place any explicit restrictions on the power of the Parliament to amend the CoI, it is through a
judicial intervention that the Doctrine of Basic Structure was created to place principle based limitations.

Under Art 368 With State Ratification (Federally Sensitive) Introduced in either
Without State Ratification houses (LS/RS) (LS=RS)
(require Spl. Majority)
Constitutional Introduced by any
Amendments member
Under Art 368 Article Specific exceptions (Unitary)
(simple Majority) Pres has to give assent

Art 368 is a confluence of the Constitutions of the World - US, Ireland, Australia

Why Art 368 Imp? Should Parl power be restricted? How?

1. Parliamentary Sovereignty vs. 1. Safeguard Against Authoritarianism 1. Basic Structure Doctrine

Constitutional Supremacy 2. Judicial Review as a Constitutional 2. Procedural Rigour of Article 368
2. Protection of Fundamental Rights Safeguard 3. Judicial Review of
3. Federalism 3. Balance Between Flexibility and Constitutional Amendments
4. Continuity vs. Change Stability 4. No Enlargement of Amending
5. Preventing Abuse of Power 4. Historical Precedent Power
6. Maintaining Democratic Legitimacy
7. Avoiding Extra-Constitutional
Change
8. Judicial Safeguards and Checks

The power to amend the Constitution is a solemn responsibility, not a tool of convenience. In a nation as plural and
aspirational as India, this power must be exercised not merely through the arithmetic of majority, but through the
conscience of constitutional morality.

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 7 : Basic Structure

Constitutional
Welfarist/
Amendments
Socialist/ Extent to which
Limiting Doctrine of
Land Reforms/ Constitution can
Challenges to Land Basic Structure
Nationalisation be amended
Reforms & Nationalisation
Policies
Policies

Based on the theory of implied limitation, a constitutional law doctrine that places restrictions on amending certain
essential or basic principles embedded in the CoI
Influenced by several radical constitutional amendments in Germany during the Weimar regime, German Law Professor
Conrad is responsible for the genesis of the basic structure doctrine.
Though mentioned briefly during the Golak Nath case in 1967, the doctrine was cemented in the landmark 13 judge SC
Intro
case of Kesavananda Bharti in 1973, Mr. Nani Palkiwala has been credited with persuading the SC to formulate the
doctrine
Chief Justice of India Dr DY Chandrachud has called the ‘basic structure doctrine’ a north star “which guides and gives
a certain direction to the interpreters and implementers of the Constitution when the path ahead is convoluted.”.

Impact

1. Checks & Balances: If the Parliament had an unfettered right to amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court had a
coextensive power to review and invalidate any amendment that violated its basic structure.
2. Constitutionalism: The decision in Keshavananda ensured that the Parliament, which holds its constituent power in
trust for the people of India, can never change the fundamental bases of India. The Parliament's power to amend is
not limitless and is always coextensive with that of the people
3. Domino Effect : Credited with protecting the Indian state from collapsing like many of its South Asian counterparts,
whether through totalitarian rule, military coup or other extra-constitutional means.
4. Judicial Review and Constitutional Supremacy: The doctrine reinforces the principle of judicial review, granting the
Indian judiciary the power to review and strike down laws that violate the basic structure of the Constitution. This
ensures the supremacy of the Constitution and prevents the arbitrary exercise of power by the legislature.
5. Fundamental Rights: The doctrine of basic structure acts as a safeguard for fundamental rights enshrined in the
Indian Constitution. It ensures that no constitutional amendment can dilute or abrogate these rights, such as the right
to equality, freedom of speech, or protection against discrimination.
6. Maintaining Federalism: The doctrine protects the basic structure of federalism in India. It prevents the Parliament
from altering the essential features of the federal structure, such as the distribution of powers between the Union
and the states. This has helped maintain the balance between the central government and state governments.
7. Limiting Constitutional Amendments: The doctrine imposes limitations on the amending power of the Parliament.
While the Indian Constitution allows for amendments, the doctrine sets a boundary by prohibiting amendments that
violate the basic structure. This prevents the Parliament from altering the Constitution in a manner that
fundamentally transforms its character.
8. Evolution of the Constitution: The doctrine of basic structure allows for the evolution of the Indian Constitution in
response to changing societal needs and aspirations. While the basic structure remains protected, the interpretation
and application of the Constitution by the judiciary have allowed for progressive developments in areas such as
expanding fundamental rights and inclusivity.

Critique Future of
BSD
1. No Constitutional Mention 1. Higher Bench Review
2. Lengthy 2. Reconstituting the Constituent
3. Ambiguous Assembly
4. Dangers democracy 3. Targeted Constitutional Amendments
4. Revolution (DD Basu)

The Basic Structure is not a barrier to progress; it is a bridge between the past and the future—between what India aspired to be in
1950, and what it must never stop striving to become. It reminds us that while laws may change, principles must endure. And in
doing so, it ensures that the soul of the Constitution remains inviolable, even as its body adapts to the needs of an evolving nation.
Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of
Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 8: Timeline

1948 : Madras introduced caste based reservations in Education

Early 1950s : Several states such as Bihar, UP, MP pass agrarian land reform laws restricting ownership
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) : Madras 1948 law struck down, FR > DPSP

Art 15(4) : State can make provisions for SEBC, SC, ST advancement (Champakam nullified)
Art 19(2) : Restrictions relating public order, friendly relations with foreign states and incitement to
an offence added (to counter Romesh Thapar (1951) Art 19 related judgement)
1st CA, 1951
Art 19(6)(ii) : State can fully/partially monopolise any trade, business, industry or service
PM : Nehru Art 31A : Property acquisition by State would not violate Art 14, 19,31
Art 31B : Inserted IXth Schedule, any law inserted in the IXth Sch. could not challenged on grounds
of violation of FRs.
CA are not ‘law’ as per Art 13(2)
2 types of law making powers
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) :
Constituent : To amend CoI under Art 368
Parl has unlimited constituent power to amend anything in CoI
Ordinary : As per Sch VII (Included in ‘law’ as per Art 13(2)

17th CA, 1964 : Added 44 laws to IXth Sch. PM : Shastri

Sajjan Singh v. State of RJ (1965) : Reaffirmed CA not law under Art 13(2) (Contention was that 17th CA reduced HC
powers by disallowing judicial review, and should have been passed using state ratification majority)
FRs have a ‘transcendental’ position in CoI
CA are ‘law’ as per Art 13(2) (overruled Shankari and Sajjan Singh)
Golak Nath v. State of PB (1967) :
Parl cannot amend anything in Part III from now on (Doctrine of prospective
overruling - judgement only applicable for future cases)
Art 13(4) : Art 13 wont apply to CA under Art 368 implying CA are not ‘law’ as per Art 13(2)
(negatived Golak Nath)
Art 368 : Title : from 'Procedure' to 'Power to amend CoI and procedure thereof.’
24th CA, 1971 : Art 368(1): Parl. has constituent power to amend any provision in CoI (negatived Golak Nath)
Art 368(2): Pres. can only give assent to CA Bills, can’t reject/return.
Art 368(3): Art 13 wont apply to CA under Art 368 implying CA are not ‘law’ as per Art 13(2)
(negatived Golak Nath)
RC Cooper v. UoI (1970) : Struck down Bank Nationalisation on grounds of inadequate
compensation and violation of property rights under Art 31 Govt had nationalised
private banks and abolished
25th CA, 1971 : Art 31 : inadequate compensation can’t be challenged in court
privy purses in pursuit of
Art 31C : 39(b)(c) > Art 14,19,31
DPSPs under Art 39(b) and
Laws enacted to implement Art 39(b)(c) can’t be challenged
Art 39(c)
Scindia v. UoI (1971) : Abolition of Privy Purses (assured under Art 291, 362)

26th CA, 1971 : Removed Art 291 and 362, inserted Art 363 A abolishing Privy Purses PM : I. Gandhi from 66-77

29th CA, 1971 : Kerala land reform Acts were added to the IXth Sch

Kesavananda Bharti v. KL (1973) CA not ‘Law’ under Art 13 (Upheld 24th CA, overruled Golak Nath)
Parliament can amend anything subject to Basic Structure (Principles laid
(24th, 25th, 29th CA Challenged)
down by SC from time to time)
Art 31C : 39(b)(c) > Art 14,19,31 BUT judicially reviewable (partially upheld 25th CA)

39th CA, 1975 : Pres, VP, PM, Lok Sabha Speaker elections not judicially reviewable

Struck down 39th CA as judicial review, free/fair elections are basic structure
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) :
First case of application of Basic Structure Doctrine

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 8: Timeline

Preamble : added ‘socialist’, ‘secular’, and integrity

(Changes to 54 provisions, hence ‘mini const)
Art 31C : All DPSP > 14,19,31
42nd CA, 1976 : Changes to Art 32,131, 226 limiting judicial review (later undone via 43rd CA, ‘77)
Art 368(4) : CA under Art 368 could not challenged in court
(nullifying Kesavananda Bharti)
Art 368(5) : No limitation on constituent power of Parl to amend CoI

Removed Art 19(1)(f) and Art 31[Art 31(1), 31(2)] as FR to Property, inserted Art 300A, Art 31A-C
44th CA 1978 :
retained, (Constitutional/Legal Right available for all persons subject to certain restrictions)
PM : M. Desai Art 31C : All DPSP > 14,19 (Art 31 removed)
Struck down Art 368(4) and Art 368(5)
Minerva Mills v. UoI (1980)
Art 31 C : (restored to pre 42nd position) : 39(b)(c)>14,19 with Judicial Review
FRs and DPSP must be co-read harmoniously

Laws added to IXth Sch after Kesavananda Bharti case can be challenged on grounds of
Wama Rao v. UoI (1981):
Basic Structure but laws added before Kesavanada can’t be. (Doctrine of prospective
overruling)
Laws added to IXth Sch after Kesavananda Bharti case can be challenged on
IR Ceolho v. State of TN (2007) : Basic Structure
Essential Features
Art 14,15,19,21 specifically as well.

SC AoR Assn. v UoI (2015): (4th Judges Case) : 99th CA (NJAC) struck down;Independence of Judiciary is Basic Structure

Madras Bar Association v. UoI (2015) : Not just CA under Art 368, Ordinary laws also can’t violate Basic Structure.
Anjum Qadri v. UoI (2024) (UP Madrassa): Must be specifically shown as to how ordinary laws violate basic structure.
Art 31C’s position as per Minerva Mills and Kesavananda
Property Owners Association v. State of MH (2024): Bharti is valid.
All kinds and nature of property is not included in ‘material
resources’ as per Art 39(b), can limit Govt acquisition of
Property

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 9: Components
Inclusions

Principles Cases Principles Cases

Supremacy of the Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973) Parliamentary Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala
Constitution SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994) System of Govt (1973)

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) Principle of free

Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillu (1993)
Rule of Law Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1993) and fair elections
IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Parliamentary
Democracy & Multi Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006)
Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973) Party Systems
Separation of
SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Powers
IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Principles Cases

Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973)

Federalism
SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994) Independent &
Registrar (Admin) v. Sisir Kant Satapathy
Efficient Judicial
(1999)
Systems
Limitations of
amending power Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
under Art 368 SC Powers under
Delhi Judicial Service Association v.
Art 32, 136, 141,
State of Gujarat (1991)
142

Principles Cases
Effective Access to Central Coal Fields v. Jaiswal Coal Co.
Justice (1980)
Principles behind Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973)
Fundamental Rights IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala
(1973)
Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973) Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Judicial Review,
SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994) Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Secularism Art 32, Art
Sri Adi Vishveshwarya of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, SP Sampat Kumar v. Union of India
226/227
Varanasi v. State of UP (1997) (1987)
L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
(1997)
Balance between
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
FRs and DPSPs
Independence of
SC AoR Assn. v. Union of India (1994)
Judiciary
Concept of social
and economic Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973)
justice, DPSP in Bhim Singh JI v. Union of India (1981)
toto

Objectives
specified in the Kesavanada Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973)
Preamble

Temporary Provision and CA under 368

Fifth Schedule and
not required to amend it. [SC AoR Assn.
amendments
v. Union of India (1994)]

Takes away service matters jurisdiction

Exclusions 323A (Tribunals) from HC and Civil Courts. [SP Sampat
via 42nd CA, 1976 Kumar v. Union of India (1987) & L
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)]

Amendment taking Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of

away a FR India (1951)

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 10: Pardons

The power to pardon, resting with the President and the Governors under Articles 72 and 161 of the Indian
Constitution, stands as one of the most potent symbols of the Republic’s humanism—where justice is not
merely cold and legalistic but tempered with compassion, conscience, and corrective intent.
Intro

Rooted in the monarchic traditions of ancient civilizations and evolving through constitutional democracies,
this power represents a paradox: it allows an unelected figurehead to override the solemn verdicts of the
judiciary.

Rationale Issues

1. Correcting Judicial Errors

2. Justice-Enhancing and Justice-Neutral 1. Lack of Transparency
Measure 2. Political Influence
3. Policy and Compassion 3. Delay in Disposal
4. Democratic Accountability 4. Separation of Powers
5. Mercy as a Sovereign Function 5. No Review Mechanism
6. Moral Authority 6. Judicial Review Limits
7. Historical Precedent

Judgements International Practices

1. Mohinder Singh v. Punjab (1977) USA Article II, Sec 2 –

a. Power to pardon can’t override due process; must be President can grant pardons except in
reasoned impeachment. Subject to limited judicial
2. Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) review in exceptional cases like Hoffa v. Saxbe
a. Pardoning power is not personal discretion of UK
President/Governor; must act on Council of Ministers’ Exercise of mercy by Crown on Home
advice Secretary’s advice; judicial review limited (e.g.
3. Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989) R v. Secretary of State, ex parte Bentley)
a. Pardoning power is broad, includes revisiting merits of Pakistan
the case; not judicial in nature but subject to limited Article 45 – President has unfettered power;
review not subject to judicial review
4. Satpal v. State of Haryana (2000) Bangladesh
a. Mercy decision must consider post-conviction Article 49 – Power vests in President, but only
behaviour; absence of such consideration can exercised on PM’s advice
invalidate the pardon
5. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)
a. The Court held that undue delay in deciding mercy
petitions can be a ground for commuting death
sentences

Solutions : Conclusion
1. Judicial Review with Self-Restraint
2. Guidelines and Transparency The challenge, therefore, lies not in curtailing the
3. Executive Self-Restraint power, but in disciplining its exercise—with
4. Timely Decisions procedural fairness, timely action, and judicious
5. Public Accountability restraint. For in a nation where the rule of law
6. Independent Clemency Board reigns supreme, even mercy must march to the
7. Legislative Oversight rhythm of reason.
8. Constitutional Amendment

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 11: Ordinances

Conceived as an emergency measure for rare and urgent situations under Art 123/213 when
Legislatures are not in session, this tool has evolved into a parallel legislative mechanism, often
circumventing democratic scrutiny and institutional deliberation. (Delhi Services, Commercial Courts)
Intro
Originally, conceived from the GoI Act, 1935; Only India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh permit ordinance-
making in parliamentary democracies—a rare exception globally
Data
Constitutional Scheme
1. Frequency and Trends: he decades
1. Can only be passed when either of the houses are not in session 1990–1999 and 1970–1979 saw the
2. Can be issued only on the respective ordinary legislative powers of highest numbers (196 and 133,
Parliament and State Legislatures respectively), coinciding with political
3. Constitutional Amendments cannot be Ordinances instability and coalition governments
4. Have to passed within the first 6 weeks of the house coming back to 2. State-Level Data: States have higher
session rates of re-promulgation. For example,
5. Can be Judicially Reviewed [Art 13(2) and Legislative Competence] Kerala reissued 140 out of 144
6. President/Governor can respectively return or reject the Central or State ordinances in 2021
Ordinances 3. Re-promulgation: Only 42 central
7. Governor can’t promulgate on Ordinance on something which should or ordinances have been reissued, but
could have been reserved for the President state governments frequently re-
promulgate ordinances to extend their
life
Rationale Issues 1. Undermines Legislative Supremacy
1. Misuse for Political Parliamentary Democracy 2. Weakens Deliberation
1. Emergency
Expediency 3. Disrupts Committee System
Legislative Need
2. Re-promulgation 4. Dilution of Public Mandate
2. Continuity of
3. Lack of Scrutiny 5. Collective Responsibility
Governance
4. No Cap
3. Exceptional Tool
5. Impact Post-Lapse 1. Legislative Power usurped by Executive
6. Bypassing Committees Separation of Powers 2. Judicial Overload
3. Constitutional Disequilibrium
4. Federalism

Jurisprudence Jurisprudence

1. A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982)

1. Mixed Signals
a. Urgency is essential; ordinances not a substitute for
2. Judicial Review Evolving
regular lawmaking.
3. Need for Stronger Standards
2. DC Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987)
4. Gap in Implementation
a. Re-promulgation is a “fraud on the Constitution.”
3. Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017)
a. Ordinance must be laid before legislature; re-
promulgation unconstitutional.
Conclusion
Post Lapse Prognosis
1. Re-promulgation Not Permitted For in the quiet expansion of ordinance-making lies the
2. Actions under the ordinance may remain loud warning of democratic decay. The future of India's
valid (doctrine of past operation) constitutional order depends on restoring law-making to
3. Rights conferred or taken away may be the chamber of elected debate, not the corridors of
lost unless expressly saved or re-enacted executive decree.
by statute

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 12: Anti Defection Law
A set of provisions prohibiting changing of political parties or actions against party interests to curb
political opportunism, violation of which can led to the disqualification of legislators.

Intro Inserted as the Xth Schedule via the 52nd CA, 1985 & Instrumental changes were made via 91st CA
2003

SC, as guardian of CoI, is not powerless if a Speaker decides to sit on anti-defection pleas: CJI B.R. Gavai

Rationale
It intends to combat political defections fuelled by political
corruption and bribery
Defections flout the voters’ mandate

Global Comparisons
Only six countries have a law that mandates legislators to vote
according to party diktat (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Guyana,
Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe)
US - Internal US party structure that provides for sanctions to be
imposed on legislators who do not vote according to party lines.
US SC : Bond v. Floyd (1966) : that legislators had an
obligation to take a stand on controversial issues
UK - Like the US, however, the British Parliament does not
provide for a separate anti-defection law. Here too, all matters of
defection are governed by internal party rules
Analysis
Grounds Authority
Voluntarily gives up his membership Difficult to expect that the Speaker will act impartially in cases
Wide meaning, not defined pertaining to his/ her political party
Ravi Naik vs Union of India, 1994 : Conduct is No time limit for him to arrive at any decision
enough, formal resignation is not necessary Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu & Ors., 1992 :
Halim Committee (1994) : Political party and Subject to judicial review, post decision, courts cannot get into
voluntarily giving up should be properly procedure
defined Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya (2007) SC held that
Votes contrary to party direction Judicial Review can invoked when :
Includes abstentions when the Speaker fails to act on a complaint of defection,
Forced obedience, compromising free speech. When the Speaker accepts the claim of splits or mergers
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu & Ors., 1992 : without any finding and reason,
Qualified freedom of speech, not in conflict when the Speaker fails to act as per the Tenth Schedule.
with Art 19 or Art 105/194 It also held that ignorance of a petition for disqualification is
170th Law Commission Report not a mere irregularity on the part of the Speaker but amounts
Limited use of Whips : vote of to violation of a Constitutional duty.
confidence/no-confidence, money bill, or Keisham Meghachandra Singh v The Hon’ble Speaker, Manipur
motion of vote of thanks to the Legislative Assembly (2020)
President’s address Constitutional Amendment and independent tribunal headed
by retired SC judged should decide, Suggested a 3 month
timeframe
Exemptions
Dinesh Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms (1990) & ECI :
91st CA, 2003 : 2/3rds merger allowed, leftover Pres/Gov should decide on binding ECI advice
can function as a distinct unit
Outcome
Based on the number of members rather than
the reason behind the defection. Disqualification without any further penalty
Election Commission : Pre Poll Alliances should Not deterrent enough
also be considered as a political unit Halim Committee (1994) : Expelled members to be barred
from holding any consequential offices and joining other
parties

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 12: Anti Defection Law (Contd)
Impact

1. Legislators
a. In a parliamentary system, legislators are expected to exercise their independent judgement while
determining their position on an issue.
b. The choice of the member may be based on a combination of public interest, constituency interests, and
party affiliations.
c. This fundamental freedom of choice could be undermined if the member is mandated to vote along the party
line on every Bill or motion.
d. One of the key features of a parliamentary democracy is that the government is accountable for its decisions
to Parliament. This accountability is tested through questions posed to Ministers, discussions on various
government policies, and by debating national issues.
e. However, the anti-defection law deters a legislator from his duty to hold the government accountable, by
requiring him to follow the instruction of the party leadership on almost every decision.
f. May debate and dissent from his party position on an issue in Parliament, but will still be compelled to vote
as per the instruction of the party whip
g. By prohibiting dissent, the anti-defection undermines the system of executive accountability to the
legislature, and gives the executive control over Parliament on all votes.
2. Parliament/Legislatures
a. Leads to major decisions in the legislature being taken by a few party leaders and not by the larger body of
legislators.
b. In India, political parties frequently issue whips on matters which are subject to a vote in Parliament. This
implies that anyone who controls the party leadership can issue directions to all legislators.
c. This reduces Parliament from a deliberative body to one where party leaders are able to unilaterally decide
the vote on an issue, without consulting with members of their political party.
d. As a result, to win a motion in Parliament, the government is only required to consult with leaders of the
major political parties in the House
e. House. This number for consensus may further be reduced if a single party has majority in the House.
3. Voter
a. Breaks the chain of accountability between elected representatives and the voter
b. Every member is required to vote as per the direction issued by their party.
c. He can easily justify his voting decisions and absolve herself of this representational responsibility to her
voters by merely saying that the party whip compelled her to vote in a particular way.

Examples
2018: Arunachal Pradesh Government Collapse
43 Congress MLAs led by Chief Minister Pema Khandu defected to the People’s Party of Arunachal (PPA),
eventually joining the BJP.
2019: Karnataka Legislative Assembly Crisis
Several MLAs resigned, leading to a political crisis and government collapse.
2019: Meghalaya Speaker’s Decision
Disqualification of MLAs under the anti-defection law was challenged.
2020: Manipur Legislative Assembly Case
SC upheld the disqualification of nine MLAs under the anti-defection law.
2021: Sachin Pilot and Rajasthan Congress MLAs
Sachin Pilot and his supporters challenged the anti-defection law in the Rajasthan High Court.
2022: Maharashtra Political Crisis
A faction of over 30 MLAs led by Eknath Shinde defected from the ruling Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), leading to a
split and change in government.

If political parties want to have members who toe the party line, their leadership must work harder to promote internal
party democracy, dialogue, and avenues for growth of its members. In essence, the law should not just be a tool to enforce
party discipline, but a mechanism to deepen democratic accountability and reinforce the moral fibre of India’s
parliamentary democracy. Only then can it fulfil its true purpose—of safeguarding the credibility and coherence of the
legislature as a forum of public trust.

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 13: Immunities & Privileges
Parliamentary privileges are those which are enjoyed by the house collectively, its committees and its
members individually without which they cannot discharge their functions efficiently and effectively
Intro
In Sita Soren v. UoI (2024), 7-judge SC Bench while overruling P. V. Narasimha Rao v State (1998)
unanimously held that legislators are not protected with immunity under Article 105(2) and Article 194(2)
does not include immunity from bribery.

Rationale
To protect lawmakers from interference by others in the discharge of their
essential functions.
Differential treatment accorded to incumbent legislators is justified in light
of their duties as a particular class of public officials
The ability to speak and vote inside the legislature without the fear of
intimidation or punishment is considered to be intrinsic to the role of an
elected representative.
A breach of privilege is also an act of contempt of the House. Reverse not
true.

Judgements
Issues
1. M.S.M. Sharma vs. Shri Krishna Sinha (1959) (searchlight case) 1. Codification
a. Article 194(3) > Article 19(1)(a), since the former was a 2. Conflict with Freedom of Speech & other FRs
special protection accorded to legislatures in contrast to the 3. Limits Judicial Review
general applicability of Art 19. 4. Parliamentary Overreach
2. Dr Jatin Chandra Ghosh v Hari Sadhan (1961) 5. Politicisation
a. Acting in a private capacity does not invoke Article 194 6. Excessive Usage
3. Keshav Singh Case (1964) : 7. Separation of Powers
a. Legislative privileges are not absolute and are subject to Solutions
judicial review. The legislature cannot use its privileges to 1. Parliamentary Privileges Commission
violate fundamental rights. 2. Codification of Privileges
4. Raja Ram Pal v Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) 3. Training and Sensitisation of Legislators
a. Punishment does not include future disqualifications. 4. Involvement of the Judiciary
5. Sita Soren Case (2024) : - two-fold test - Bribery not protected 5. Strengthening Parliamentary Committees
a. The act for which immunity is claimed must be related to 6. Promoting Cross-Party Dialogue and
the collective functions of the House. Consensus
b. Secondly, the immunity sought should have a “functional 7. Respect for Rights and Parliamentary
relationship” to the discharge of the duty of an individual Procedures
legislator.

Parliamentary privileges are not ornamental relics of a bygone constitutional era, they are not individual entitlements but
institutional guarantees, designed to uphold the dignity and independence of the legislative body as a whole. In a
constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, parliamentary privileges must serve democracy, not dominate it.

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 14: Office of Profit

The concept of Office of Profit lies at the confluence of constitutional morality, political ethics, and the
Intro
doctrine of separation of powers

Rationale Developments

1. separation of power between the legislature and the 1. In 2018, on ECI recommendation, President disqualified
executive 20 MLAs of the Delhi Legislative Assembly last month
2. prevention of possibility of a conflict between duty and for holding an ‘office of profit’ in form of Parliamentary
interest of an individual who is required to perform the Secretaries to to various ministries in the Delhi
role of both a legislator and a member of the executive. government.
2. Reports of parliamentary secretaries being appointed in
20 states in the past with court judgments striking down
Essentials these appointments in several cases
The law does not clearly define what constitutes an office of profit
The definition has evolved over the years with interpretations made in various
court judgments.
Three Essential Elements : S. Umrao Singh v. Darbara Singh (1968) Way forward
the individual holds an office Second ARC Recommendations :
it is an office of profit Offices in purely advisory bodies should
it is under the Government of India or a State not be treated as offices of profit,
Nature of Control : Ashok Kumar Bhattacharya v. Ajoy Biswas (1985) ; Dobrey v. irrespective of any remuneration attached
Dobrey (1984) with the office
The extent of government control over the office plays a pivotal role Offices whose holder has executive
Pecuniary Advantage : Hedge v. State of Karnataka (1993) decision-making power and control over
While an element of profit is necessary, mere prestige or advantages are public funds should be treated as offices
insufficient. of profit. The executive decision-making
Regularity of Income : Hotilal v. Bahadur (1958) power may include deciding policy,
An office need not have a regular income managing or approving expenditure etc.
Sui Juris: Ghulam Chand v. Thakur Singh (1953) If the office-holder is the Head or
The holder of the office must be sui juris, meaning legally capable of holding the Member of such organisation where close
office coordination between the Council of
Tests : Swapan Roy v. Pradyut Bordoloi (2001) Ministers and the organisation is essential
Government Appointment: Guru Govinda Basu v. Shankari; Prasad Ghosal & for functioning of the Government, the
Ors (1964) office should not be treated as an office
The government must have the power to appoint and remove the holder of of profit.
the office
Government Payment:
The government should be responsible for paying remuneration attached to “A practical view, not pedantic basket of
the office tests, should guide in arriving at a
Government Control: sensible conclusion “ Prof. Achary,
The government should exercise control over the performance of the Practice and Procedure of Parliament
functions associated with the office.
Conflict of Interest:
The presence of a conflict of interest is a crucial factor in determining
whether an office falls within the ambit of an "Office of Profit."
Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of
Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 15: Presiding Officers

‘The Speaker’s position should be free, honoured, and represented by men of outstanding ability and
impartiality as it is the symbol of nation’s freedom and liberty’ - Nehru, March 1948
Intro
No Deputy Speaker for entire 17 LS and none elected ‘thus far’ in 18 LS.
Role of Speaker is to enable the House and not Shut it - N.S. Reddy, 1968

Rationale Behind Presiding Officers

Constitutional Necessity
Institutional Neutrality
Democratic Accountability

Role/Functions
All Presiding Officers LS Speaker

Position Certifies money bill (Art 110)

Equality of Votes Art 100 Presides over Joint Sittings
Salary & Allowances charged on CFI Supreme Control of Parliamentary
House Processes Committees
House can commence only when PO is sitting Ex-Officio President of Indian Parliamentary
Hours of commencement/termination of sitting Group, Institute of Constitutional and
Adjourns sine die or otherwise Parliamentary Studies
Suspend sitting when no quorum
Admissibility of motions, resolutions incl. No Confidence, Cuts.
Prior consent for petitions
Dy Speaker
Selection of amendments
Continuity of legislative work - pragmatic
Nominates Panel of Chairs Members
Presides over
House discipline
House Budget Committee
Identifies member to speak and time duration
Private Member Bills Committee
Recognised point of order
Imp debates require neutrality
Expunge disorderly statements from record
No time per se but Art 93 mentions ‘as soon
Ask member to withdraw from house
as’
Executive Accountability
Determines order of Govt Business in consultations with
Leader of House RS Chair
Chair
Regulates Questions, follow ups
Business Advisory Committee,
Conducts/regulates house debates and proceedings
Rules Committee
Quasi Judicial
General Purposes Committee
Anti Defection law
Committee Member which nominates the
Prima Facie - contempt/privilege
Chairman of the Press Council (Press Council
Constituting committees for removal of Judges (Judges Inquiry
Act, 1978)
Act, 1968)
Nominates RS members to boards of BHU,
Interpretation
JNU, JMI, NE Hill Uni, NCTE, Haj
Rulings are precedents
Committee, Press Council of India, Samsad
Correct patent errors in legislations on the floor
(Court) of Visva Bharati
House Statements
Nominates RS Members to General
Reference to imp national and international events
Assembly/body of the ICCR, Central Social
Misc
Welfare Board, School of Planning and
Head of House Secretariat
Architecture, Hindi Shiksha Samiti. Samiti,
Confirming rules made under MP Salaries Act, 1954
Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary
Communications to and from Pres/Gov
Studies.

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 15: Presiding Officers (Contd)

1. Partisan Behaviour
a. Perceived bias toward ruling party; compromises neutrality.
2. Anti-Defection Delays
a. No timeline to decide disqualification; weakens the law.
Issues 3. Money Bill Misuse
a. Speaker’s certification power used to bypass Rajya Sabha.
4. Lack of Accountability
a. Final decisions with limited judicial review.
5. Disruptions and Decorum
a. Frequent House disruptions; ineffective control.

1. N.S Reddy resigned from native political party in 1969 as he was contesting for Pres Office
2. WB and PB Speakers adjourned Houses in 1968-69 for prolonged periods causing vacuum
3. Somnath Chatterjee ignored party direction on Nuclear Deal during 14th LS , and conducted proceedings
Case
impartially
Studies
4. Sumitra Mahajan’s (LS) classification of Aadhaar Bill as Money Bill is contentious
5. Hamid Ansari’s (RS) 2013 ruling on Zero Hour constraints lead to better decorum
6. K.R. Narayanan’s (RS) digitisation initiative won international laurels.

1. English convention, the Speaker, after being elected, cuts off his association with his party and seeks re-
election as an independent candidate,
Best
2. Australia - Speaker’s rulings are open to discussion; wider participation in procedural reform..
Practices
3. Canada - Deputy Speakers often rotate between parties; ensures shared responsibility.
4. New Zealand - Speakers follow written codes of conduct; decisions reviewed by parliamentary services.

1. Independent Selection Process

a. Election of Speaker/Chairman involving Opposition consensus. (Halim Committee (1994), Law
Commission (170th Report)
2. Mandatory Resignation from Party
a. Speaker to resign party post upon election for neutrality. (UK model.)
3. Time-bound Anti-Defection Rulings
a. 3-month deadline for decisions. [Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker (2020).]
Solutions
4. Judicial Oversight or Tribunal
a. Anti-defection cases to be decided by independent body (Keisham Singh, 2020)
5. Rotation System for Sessions
a. Sharing chairing duties to reduce concentration of power. [Parliamentary Standing Committee (2022)]
6. Greater Role for Deputy Speaker
a. Often left vacant; strengthening would improve checks. - Timeline of 60 days to appoint
7. Codification of Powers & Procedures
a. Clarifies scope of actions; enhances transparency [Privileges Committee, Lok Sabha (2008)]

As the impartial custodian of legislative integrity, the Speaker or Chairman embodies the very spirit of the rule of
law, fair deliberation, and institutional balance. In a democracy where the majority governs but the minority must
be heard, the Presiding Officer ensures that both power and restraint co-exist within the House.

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 16: Bicameralism & Rajya Sabha

‘Council of States signifies federal bicameralism through Art 79 and Art 80

Intro
Envisaged under GoI Act 1919 (Montague Chelmsford Reforms) as a house with a fixed tenure, 1935
Act vision of a second continuous house never materialised, Constituent Assembly had little prior
guidance while conceptualising the Rajya Sabha.

1. Check on hasty and ill-conceived legislations

2. Sharing the burden of the Lower Chambers.
Justifications 3. Creates an enabling atmosphere for securing greater executive accountability
4. Hold debates on matters of wide ranging public issues which otherwise may not be held
5. Legitimately hold itself as the guardians of the state-interests in a federal polity.

Role

1. Revision : Though revisions have been few , yet potentially there is always the possibility of revision
a. Income Tax (Amendment) Bill, 1961, Prevention of Terrorism Bill, 2002, the Delimitation Bill 2002
2. Federal : Representatives of each state are elected by the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies
i. All India Services, Legislating over State List, Approving National Emergency when LS is dissolved
3. Deliberative : Nomination 12 Members for their contribution to literature, science, art and social service.
a. The party-wise composition in the Rajya Sabha changes at a much slower pace.
4. Continuity : not subject to dissolution and one-third of its Members retire every second year
a. Bill which is pending in the Rajya Sabha and has not been passed by the Lok Sabha, will not lapse on the
dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
5. Not Concerned with Government Formation : no role in the making or unmaking of the Government.
6. Effectively Small : Maximum strength is 250 vis-a-vis 550 in the Lok Sabha
7. Securing Executive Accountability : 24 DRSC, out of which 8 are under Rajya Sabha
a. Fair number of the members of Rajya Sabha are also part of the Council of Ministers.
8. Ventilating Public Grievances : All parliamentary devices restrictive motions available

Issues Solutions

1. Rising Disruptions and Declining Productivity 1. Structural Reforms in Membership and Representation
a. In 2016, the Rajya Sabha failed to take up Finance a. Reinstate the domicile requirement
and Appropriation bills due to protests and chaos, b. Provide equal representation to all states to
delaying crucial financial legislation address federal imbalance
2. Partisan Politics and Lack of Accountability c. Representation from local bodies like panchayats
a. 2025 uproar triggered by Opposition leader’s and municipalities (Punchhi Commission)
remarks reflects the highly charged partisan 2. Reforming Anti-Defection Law for Rajya Sabha
atmosphere that hampers constructive debate a. Amend the anti-defection law to allow Rajya Sabha
3. Undemocratic and Unrepresentative Composition members to vote independently
a. Unequal representation of states, with populous 3. Increasing Powers and Role in Legislation
states like Uttar Pradesh having more members a. Amend Article 110 to allow Rajya Sabha to review
than smaller states Money Bills, preventing circumvention
4. Limited Powers and Circumvention 4. Limited Powers and Circumvention
a. No-confidence motions cannot be introduced in a. No-confidence motions cannot be introduced in
Rajya Sabha, restricting its ability to hold the Rajya Sabha, restricting its ability to hold the
government accountable government accountable.
5. Structural and Procedural Issues
a. Insufficient resources such as research staff and
limited time
In an age where majoritarian tides often sweep swiftly through lower houses, the Rajya Sabha offers a vital pause—a chamber
of “second thought” where law is refined, not rushed; and diversity is represented, not diluted. For democracy is not merely
about decisions taken, but the way in which those decisions are debated, scrutinised, and refined. In that journey, the Rajya
Sabha is not a speed breaker—it is a constitutional conscience

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 17 : Whips

The term "whip" originates from England's hunting fields, where a "whipper-in" kept stray hounds
within the pack. Politically, it was first used by Edmund Burke to describe rallying party supporters
Intro

‘Important for parliamentary democracy as parties see voting on some matters as how their politics is
perceived’ - Former Sec Gen ADT Achary

Status in India

Anti-Defection Law (1985) legally enforces compliance with

whips to maintain party coherence and avoid opportunistic
switching of sides
Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and MoS Parliamentary
Affairs are Govt Chief Whips in LS and RS
Opposition Parties have their own whips

Role

1. Ensuring Party Discipline: Whips direct party members to vote in line with the party’s stance, maintaining unity and
coherence in parliamentary decisions
2. Ensuring Attendance: Whips ensure members are present during important votes to maintain quorum and
demonstrate party strength.
3. Counting Votes: Before votes, whips survey members to predict outcomes and strategise accordingly.
4. Communication Link: Whips act as liaisons between party leadership and members, conveying party policies and
gathering feedback.
5. Managing Parliamentary Business: Whips coordinate which members speak on bills and manage internal party
organisation within the legislature.
6. Monitoring Discontent: Whips identify signs of dissent or dissatisfaction among members and report to party leaders
to preempt rebellion.
7. Enforcing Consequences: Violation of whip directives, especially a strict "three-line whip," can lead to disciplinary
action including disqualification under anti-defection laws or withdrawal of party membership
8. Crisis Management: During internal dissent, floor-crossing threats, or coalition instability, whips act as political
stabilisers.

Issues Best Practices Solutions

1. Restriction on MPs' Freedom 1. UK - breaking 3 line whip 1. Codify the Scope of Whips
2. Undemocratic Nature makes MP independent a. 170th Law Comm (1999)
3. Abuse of Power 2. US - less formal, mostly for 2. Differentiate Legislative Issues
4. Factionalism and Internal Party legislative strategy a. NCRWC (2002)
Divides 3. Australia - "Conscience votes" 3. Internal Democracy in Parties
5. Lack of Transparency. are officially recognised a. II ARC (2007)
6. Over-centralisation: 4. Whip Transparency
a. PRS (2022)
5. Revise Anti-Defection Law
a. Former VP - H. Ansari

As India completes over 75 years of parliamentary democracy, perhaps it is time to reimagine the role of the Whip—
not as a symbol of control, but as a tool of coordination; not as an enforcer of silence, but as an enabler of responsible
freedom. For when discipline aligns with dialogue, and loyalty walks hand in hand with liberty, democracy does not
fracture—it flourishes.

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 18 : Delegated Legislation

Recent Draft UGC Regulations 2025 in context of state varsity laws have led to questions on appropriate use
of delegated legislation as well as federalism.

Excuse for the Legislature, a shield for Executors, and a provocation to the Constitutional Jurist - Justice PB
Intro
Mukherjee

Exercising of legislative power by an agent who is lower in rank to the Legislature, or who is subordinate to
the Legislature.

International Comparisons
Need for Delegated Legislation
1. UK :
a. Extensive use; Parliament retains ultimate
1. Pressure on Parliamentary Time authority; “Henry VIII clauses” sometimes used
a. Legislature formulates general policy and 2. US :
delegates details to executive. a. Permitted but limited by strict separation of
2. Technicality of Subject Matter powers doctrine; agencies make regulations
a. Laws involving science, defence, health, etc., 3. Australia
require expert input. a. Extensive use; similar to UK; executive makes
3. Flexibility regulations under Acts
a. Allows timely response to changing needs
without lengthy amendment processes.
4. Emergencies Key Landmark Judgments
a. Critical for quick action during crises (e.g.,
pandemics, war). 1. Re Delhi Laws Act, 1912
5. Experimentation a. Delegated legislation as a necessity in modern
a. Executive can trial rules before full-scale governance but firmly established that the
implementation. legislature must retain ultimate control and cannot
6. Implementation Efficiency delegate its core law-making powers.
a. Local bodies better understand regional issues, 2. Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. State of UP (1954)
enabling tailored governance. a. Executive cannot use delegated legislation to
bypass the legislature’s essential functions.

Impact on Parliamentary Democracy Impact on Separation of Powers

1. Positive impact: Allows Parliament to focus on major 1. Traditional view: Separation of powers is blurred as the
policy issues; enables efficient and responsive executive performs legislative functions.
governance. 2. Modern reality: Complete separation is impractical;
2. Negative impact: Risk of executive overreach; dilution delegation is a pragmatic necessity for effective
of parliamentary sovereignty; potential for reduced governance.
public scrutiny and debate. 3. Constitutional balance: While delegation is permitted,
3. Democratic deficit: If not properly controlled, can essential legislative functions (policy-making) must remain
undermine accountability and transparency, leading to with the legislature. Courts ensure that delegation does
“bureaucratic legislation not amount to abdication of legislative responsibility

Its legitimacy lies not in convenience but in constitutional fidelity—to the rule of law, parliamentary oversight, and the
citizen’s right to be governed by accountable laws. As India’s administrative complexity deepens, the challenge is to
wield delegation not as a shortcut, but as a carefully monitored tool that serves, rather than supplants, the legislature.

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 19 : Parliamentary Committees
Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in Committee rooms is Congress at
work.’ - former President of the U.S. Woodrow Wilson
Intro
Constitutional Amendment Bill on Simultaneous Elections referred to Joint Parliamentary Committee (2025)

Legislator’s Role Parliamentary Committees Methods/Tools

Standing Adhoc Questions

I. House Participation Committees Committees

II. Law Making Discussions

III. Financial Oversight DRSCs Financial Bill Issue Based

Bills
Based

IV. Participation in Others Resolutions

Parl. Comm.

Importance Parliamentary Triggers

1. Enhance Efficiency: Provide detailed scrutiny of 1. Growing Legislative Burden:

legislative proposals and executive action beyond a. Post-1991 liberalisation, complex economic and legal
what is possible on the House floor. reforms demand specialised oversight.
2. Enable Specialisation: MPs can focus on areas like b. Volume of laws passed has multiplied—often technical and
defence, health, and finance, leading to better- rushed, needing deliberative examination.
informed decisions. 2. Erosion of Floor Debates:
3. Depoliticised Environment: Encourage non- a. Increasing disruptions, reduced quality debates, and Zero
partisan, consensus-driven discussions away from Hour pandemonium reduce effective scrutiny on the floor.
public glare. 3. Rise in Government Schemes:
4. Public Accountability: Facilitate in-depth oversight a. Numerous centrally sponsored schemes (PMAY, Ayushman
of government spending, implementation, and Bharat, Jal Jeevan Mission) require budgetary and
policy frameworks. performance review.
5. Expert Engagement: Allow calling of witnesses, 4. Weak Opposition:
experts, and stakeholders—making parliamentary a. Committees provide alternate channels for executive
review inclusive and evidence-driven. scrutiny.
General Issues
1. Low Referral Rate of Bills: A declining proportion of Bills are referred to committees—only 14 Bills in the 17th Lok
Sabha so far.
2. Absenteeism: Average attendance in committee meetings is about 50%, undermining their effectiveness.
3. Short Tenure: DRSCs are constituted for only one year, limiting continuity and specialisation.
4. Lack of Expertise: MPs may lack the technical knowledge required for complex issues.
5. Partisan Behavior: Members often toe party lines rather than acting as independent legislators.
6. Non-Binding Recommendations: Committees can only advise; their recommendations are not binding on the
government.
7. Inadequate Resources: Committees lack full-time technical staff and research support, hindering thorough analysis.

General Data Sets

1. Committee Meeting Attendance:
a. Average attendance (DRSCs, 2009–2014): ~49%
2. Bills Referred to Committees:
a. 17th Lok Sabha: 16% of Bills referred to committees (down from previous Lok Sabhas)
3. Committee Work Output:
a. PAC recommendations (recent years): ~180 per year, with ~80% accepted by government
b. PAC reports tabled: Wide variation—for example, 156 to 268 reports tabled in recent Lok Sabhas
4. Time Taken for Reports:
a. 50% of reports on Bills presented within 115 days in 17th Lok Sabha
b. Joint Committee on Personal Data Protection Bill: 78 meetings over more than two years

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Magna Carta Mains 2025
Mains Concise Note (MCN) 19 : Parliamentary Committees (Contd)
DRSC
Importance Specific Way Forward

1. close pre-budget scrutiny of the estimates and complex expenditure plans

1. Provide in-depth scrutiny of government
(Demands for Grants) before they are voted on the floor of the House;
policies, budgets, and Bills related to specific
2. monitoring and evaluation of performance, relating to financial input to the
ministries.
policy objectives and actual results to measure effectiveness, and detailed
2. By focusing on particular sectors, DRSCs
examination of supplementary estimates;
enable MPs to develop expertise and make
3. Bills introduced in the House may automatically stand referred to the
informed recommendations.
appropriate Committee for detailed consideration and discussion;
3. DRSCs reduce the burden on the full
4. review of the implementation of laws passed by Parliament
Parliament by allowing detailed, sector-
5. leadership recruitment and training ground for higher responsibilities in
specific discussions.
Government, participation by backbenchers and building a second line of
4. They require ministers and officials to justify
leadership;
their decisions and performance

Public Accounts Committee and

Estimates Committee Specific Case Studies of Parliamentary Committees

Importance 1. Standing Committee on Transport’s scrutiny of the Motor Vehicles

1. PAC is a cornerstone of parliamentary (Amendment) Bill, 2016 led to key reforms like removing the cap on
financial oversight. Its primary role is to third-party insurance liability
examine the audit reports of the Comptroller 2. Committee on External Affairs flagged the lack of preparedness at
and Auditor General (CAG) after they are laid Doklam and recommended border infrastructure strengthening
before Parliament 3. 2011–2019, PAC recommendations were accepted by the
2. PAC scrutinises government revenue and government ~80% of the time—showing executive responsiveness
expenditure, checks for irregularities, and to committee oversight
ensures compliance with rules and 4. PAC exposed irregularities in CWG 2010 and Defence land misuse,
regulations recovering ₹838 crore in lease losses
3. Estimates Committee plays a vital role in 5. EC flagged over-dependence on imported uranium, recommending
scrutinising the government’s budget increased domestic mining and financial allocation
estimates before they are approved by 6. Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism, and Culture examined
Parliament the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2016, leading to significant
4. EC assesses whether proposed expenditures improvements in the legislation
are justified, necessary, and aligned with
national priorities

General Solutions
1. Institutional Reforms:
a. Make Referral of Bills Mandatory (as in the UK).
b. Codify Time Allotment for report reading before budget vote.
c. Create a Constitution Committee for reviewing CA compulsorily
2. Merge overlapping committees to reduce cost and redundancy (e.g., merge PAC, COPU with DRSCs)
3. Functional Reforms:
a. Train MPs in committee functioning, policy evaluation, and budget literacy
b. Professionalise Committee Staff with domain expertise.
c. Introduce Performance Metrics (e.g., Reports per sitting ratio, quality of recommendations, etc.).
4. Procedural Reforms:
a. Ensure floor discussion of all major committee reports.
b. Create a Committee Calendar to align sittings with Parliament schedule (3-day Parliament, 2-day Committee model)
5. Technological Reforms:
a. Develop a real-time information system, integrated with government dashboards and CAG reports.
b. Allow for live citizen feedback on pending Bills via digital platforms.

OECD reports that countries with strong committee systems have better governance indicators, lower budgetary leakages, and
more informed legislation.
Reforming the committee system is not an option; it is a democratic imperative. For in the invisible rooms of committee
deliberation lies the real defence of our visible democracy.

Magna Carta Foundation (MCF) : Tracker Pro : Live Databases of

Comprehensive GS II Course for Pre + Mains Newspapers, Judgements, Data, Committees, PYQs
 Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM

You can sort/filter these judgements subject/topic/current status/type wise using Tracker Pro .
More databases of reports, data sets, statistics etc also curated and available on Tracker Pro.

Tracker Pro : tracker.atishmathur.com

Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

The Supreme Court ruled that informing an arrested

person of the grounds for their arrest is not a mere
formality but a mandatory requirement under Article
Vihaan Kumar v.
22(1) of the Constitution. The Court clarified that
2025 State of Haryana & Rights of the Accused
simply informing a person of their arrest is not
Anr.
equivalent to providing them with the reasons for
their arrest, emphasizing the distinction between the
two.

The Court highlighted the need for reforms in prison

The State of administration to create a better environment and
2025 Jharkhand & Others culture within prisons, ensuring that prisoners enjoy Prison Reforms Prisoner's Rights
v. Vikash Tiwary their Right to Dignified Life under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

The Supreme Court has urged the Central

Government to consider introducing a legal
framework to protect the rights of domestic workers,
acknowledging their vulnerability to exploitation. This
direction came while hearing appeals related to the
Ajay Malik v. State wrongful confinement and trafficking allegations
2025 of Uttarakhand and against a female domestic worker. The Court Domestic Workers' Rights
Anr. emphasized that despite the growing demand for
domestic workers, they remain highly susceptible to
abuse and lack legal protection. It called for a
committee to be formed by various ministries to
explore the possibility of creating a legal framework
for their regulation and protection.

The SC observed, “Toilets/washrooms/restrooms are

not merely a matter of convenience, but a basic
necessity which is a facet of human rights. Access to
proper sanitation is recognized as a fundamental
right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which
Rajeeb Kalita vs.
2025 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.” It Article 21
Union of India & Ors
directed, “The High Courts and the State
Governments/UTs shall ensure the construction and
availability of separate toilet facilities for males,
females, PwD, and transgender persons in all Court
premises and Tribunals across the Country.”

Domicile or residence-based reservation for

Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Postgraduate (PG) Medical courses is
2025 Reservation in PG courses
Shrey Goel & Ors. unconstitutional, as it violates Article 14 of the
Constitution

Overturning the 1990 Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. v.

State of Uttar Pradesh decision, which had limited
states' regulatory powers to potable alcohol, the
State of Uttar Court ruled that "intoxicating liquors" under Entry 8
2024 Pradesh v Lalta of the State List encompass both potable and non- Federalism Taxation
Prasad Vaish potable alcohols, including industrial alcohol. This
majority decision empowers states to regulate and
tax industrial alcohol, potentially increasing their
revenue streams.

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 1

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

The Supreme Court directed reforms in the Supreme

Supreme Court Bar Court Bar Association, mandating reservation for Reservations Women's Representation
2024 Association v. B.D. women in its Executive Committee. It reserved
Women’s Rights
Kaushik specific seats for women, including one office-bearer
post, to ensure adequate representation.

Kolkata Municipal The Court upheld the right to property under Article
Corporation & Anr. 300A of the Constitution, identifying key sub-rights,
2024 Art 300A Property Rights
v. Bimal Kumar including the right to notice, fair compensation, and
Shah & Ors. public purpose etc.

The SC held:

1. Sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs)

and Scheduled Tribes (STs) is constitutionally
permissible for providing preferential treatment to
State of Punjab v. more disadvantaged groups within these categories. Reservations SC/ST Creamy Layer
2024
Davinder Singh SC/ST Sub-classification on Quantifiable Data
2.Such sub-classification does not violate Articles
14, 15, 16, or 341 of the Constitution, provided it is
based on quantifiable and demonstrable
data justifying the need for further
categorisation.

Rekha Sharma v. It was held that the reservation provided to persons

The Rajasthan High with disability was in the form of overall horizontal Disability Horizontal Reservation
2024
Court, Jodhpur & reservation and hence there was no need for a Reservations
Anr. separate cutoff.

Overruled the 1967 verdict, noting that the university

may be entitled to minority status under Art 30. The a
five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court,
in 1967, had ruled that AMU was not a minority
Aligarh Muslim
institution because it's a central university. CJI asked
2024 University: Minority Article 30 Minority Institutions
the case's judicial records to be placed before the
Status Case
regular bench, after receiving instructions from the
CJI on the administrative side, for deciding the issue
on the minority status besides adjudicating appeals
against a 2006 verdict of the Allahabad High Court.

The Supreme Court ordered the Union of India to

create a policy to replace heavy-duty diesel vehicles
Container
with BS-VI compliant ones within six months. It
Corporation of India
2024 emphasized that he right to a pollution-free Article 21
Ltd. v. Ajay Khera
environment under Article 21 of the COI applies to all
and Ors.
citizens across the country and not just those in Delhi
NCR.

The Supreme Court looked into the legality of bail

conditions which mandated that the accused
Frank Vitus v.
individuals must share their location via Google
2024 Narcotics Control Article 21 Privacy Rights of the Accused
Maps. It was held that such conditions infringed upon
Bureau
the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 21of the
Indian Constitution.

Lucknow Nagar
The Supreme Court has held that the right to
Nigam & Ors. v.
property, as enshrined under Article 300A of the
2024 Kohli Brothers Art 300A Property
Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), extends to persons
Colour Lab. Pvt.
who are not citizens of India.
Ltd. & Ors

Mineral Area
Development v. The SC held: Royalty is not a tax but a contractual
2024 Mineral Rights Royalty rights
Steel Authority of payment for the enjoyment of mineral rights.
India & Ors

The Supreme Court held that under Article 22(5) of

Jasleela Shaji v.
the Constitution, a detained person must be afforded
2024 Union of India & Rights of the Accused
the earliest opportunity to make a representation
Ors.
against the detention order.

2024 Suchita Srivastava It was held that reproductive rights are part of a Article 21
v. Chandigarh woman’s personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Administration Constitution. This reaffirmed the concept of a

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 2

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area
woman's autonomy over decisions like pregnancy
termination.

1. The Supreme Court has constituted a committee

of three retired women judges, led by Justice Gita
Mittal, to oversee humanitarian efforts and address
issues related to the violence against women in
Manipur.The committee is tasked with investigating
Manipur Violence
2024 the nature of violence, ensuring medical and Gender-Based Violence Human Rights
Case
psychological support for victims, and providing
recommendations for relief and rehabilitation.

2. The Supreme Court has transferred several cases

related to the violence to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) and directed it to ensure a fair trial
process.

The SC held: The right to be free from the adverse

effects of climate change is a fundamental right
M.K. Ranjitsinh v.
under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Climate Change Environmental Law
Union of India
2024 While conservation of endangered species is
(Climate Change Great Indian Bustard Renewable Energy
important, it must be balanced with the need to
Litigation Case)
develop renewable energy infrastructure to combat
climate change.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that Article 31C

as upheld in Kesavananada Bharati (1973) remains in
Property Owners
the Constitution after the decision in Minerva Mills
2024 Association v. State Article 39 b Property Rights
(1980). The majority also held that not all privately
of Maharashtra
owned property is a "material resource of the
community”

Ashwini Kumar The Supreme Court is hearing challenges against the

Upadhyay v. Union practice of offering and distributing freebies during Democracy Election Freebies
2024 of India (Freebies in election campaigns. The Court's decision will
Welfare State
Electoral determine how political parties contest elections in
Democracy Case) India.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional

validity of state amendments allowing traditional
animal sports like Jallikattu, Kambala, and bullock-
Animal Welfare
cart racing, ruling that these amendments did not Animal Rights Constitutional Validity
Board v. Union of
2024 violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
India (Jallikattu Cultural Practices
1960, as they included measures to minimize animal
Case)
cruelty. The court emphasized the cultural
significance of these practices and found that they
were not in direct conflict with previous judgments

The Supreme Court held that the Maharashtra

Excommunication Act, which invalidated
Central Board of
excommunication on any grounds, including Article 26 Religious Rights
Dawoodi Bohra
2023 religious ones, was unconstitutional as it infringed
Community v. State Religious Excommunication
upon the rights of religious denominations to manage
of Maharashtra
their own affairs under Article 26(b) of the Indian
Constitution.

Vivek Narayan The Supreme Court upheld the Union's 2016

Sharma v. Union of demonetisation scheme in a 4:1 split. The majority
2023 India held that the scheme was proportionate to the Demonetisation Monetary Policy
(Demonetisation Union's stated objectives and was implemented in a
Case) reasonable manner.

Tehseen SC issued guidelines to curb acts of cow vigilantism.

Poonawalla v. UOI However, it did not address questions on the Fundamental Rights Government Immunity
2023
(Cow Vigilantism constitutional validity of immunity provisions for Vigilantism
Case) cow vigilantes.

G. Niranjan v.
Election
The SC will decide the ‘Constitutionality of Linking
2023 Commission of Aadhar Voter ID linkage Right to Privacy
Aadhar with Voter ID’.
India (Aadhar-Voter
ID Linkage Case)

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 3

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

The Supreme Court declared that the process of

appointing members to the Election Commission of
Anoop Baranwal v. India (ECI) solely by the Executive was
Union of India constitutionally flawed. It directed the formation of a
(Election committee consisting of: The Prime Minister, The Appointment Process Election Commission
2023
Commission Leader of the Opposition (or the leader of the largest Independence
Appointments opposition party), The Chief Justice of India, to
Case) ensure transparency and fairness in the appointment
process until Parliament enacts a proper law on this
issue.

Association for
Democratic
The Supreme Court held that the Electoral Bond Political Funding Right to Information
Reforms v. Union of
2023 Scheme was unconstitutional for violating the right to
India (Electoral Transparency
information of voters.
Bonds Scheme
Case)

The SC held: There is no fundamental right to

Supriya marry, and the court cannot recognize same-sex
Chakraborty v. marriages without legislative intervention. While Civil Unions Legal Recognition
2023 Union of India queer couples have the right to cohabit and form
Same-Sex Marriage
(Same-Sex relationships, legal recognition of civil unions or
Marriage Case) same-sex marriages requires action by
Parliament.

Citizens for Justice The Supreme Court will decide if the anti-conversion Anti-Conversion Laws Constitutional Validity
2023 and Peace v. State laws passed by multiple States including Uttar
Religious Freedom
of Uttar Pradesh Pradesh and Uttarakhand are constitutionally valid.

Anugrah Narayan The SC held that ‘False information about educational Election Law False Representations
2022 Singh v. Harsh qualifications not a "corrupt practice" under
Representation of People Act
Vardhan Bajpayee Sections 123(2) and 123(4) of RPA 1951’.

The Supreme Court will hear petitions challenging Judicial Activism Judicial Review
Harsh Ajay Singh v
2022 the Agnipath Recruitment Scheme for the armed
Union of India Separation of Powers
forces.

The Supreme Court will decide if Section 124A of the

SG Vombatkere v
2022 Indian Penal Code, 1860, that criminalises sedition, is Sedition
Union of India
unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled that the fee structure of

arbitrators must follow the Fourth Schedule of the
Oil And Natural Gas
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, unless the
Corporation v
2022 parties have agreed otherwise. The judgment ADR Arbitration
Afcons Gunanusa
emphasized transparency and uniformity in the fee
JV
determination for arbitrators, ensuring fairness and
reducing conflicts over fees in arbitration cases.

The Supreme Court held that the restrictions placed

Noel Harper v on NGOs' ability to raise and use foreign donations
2022 Foreign Contributions NGOs
Union of India through the Foreign Contributions (Regulation)
Amendment Act, 2020 are constitutional.

Durga Dutt v Union Petition seeking the enforceability of Fundamental

2022 Duties
of India Duties

In 2016: The Supreme Court held that

a Speaker/Deputy Speaker cannot disqualify
members under the anti-defection law when
a motion for their removal is pending. The Court also
ruled that the Governor's decision to advance the
Nabam Rebia v
2022 assembly session in Arunachal Pradesh was Anti-Defection Law Governor
Deputy Speaker
unconstitutional. This ruling emphasized the
neutrality of the Speaker and upheld democratic
processes. In 2022: the Supreme Court referred the
2016 judgment from this case to a larger seven-
judge bench for reconsideration.

2022 Janhit Abhiyan v. The SC held: The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Economic Reservation Reservations
Union of India (EWS providing 10% reservation for Economically
Quota Case) Weaker Sections (EWS) is valid and does not
violate the basic structure of the
Constitution. Economic criteria can be the sole basis

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 4

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area
for providing reservations, and the exclusion of
SC/ST/OBC groups from EWS quota is not
discriminatory.

Kantaru Rajeevaru Review of Gender Equality Verdict: The Larger

v. Indian Young Bench of the SC is considering questions relating to
Lawyers interplay between religious freedom under Articles Article 14 Gender Equality
2022
Association 25 and 26 and other constitutional provisions, such Religious Freedom
(Sabarimala Review as the right to equality under Article
Petition) 14.

The SC held: The Governor is bound by the advice

of the State Cabinet on matters of remission under Governor’s Power Judicial Review
A.G. Perarivalan v.
2022 Article 161 of the Constitution. Inordinate delay by
State of Tamil Nadu Mercy Petitions
the Governor in deciding mercy petitions can be
subject to judicial review.

Committee of
The Supreme Court affirmed the Allahabad High
Management
Court's order allowing a scientific survey of the
Anjuman Intezamia Archaeological Survey Places of Worship Act
Gyanvapi mosque complex by the Archaeological
2022 Masajid Varanasi v.
Survey of India (ASI), [Reaffirmed that all these Religious Sites
Rakhi Singh
activities are not in violation of- places of worship
(Gyanvapi Mosque
act, 1991]
Case)

The Supreme Court held that Tamil

Nadu's reservation for Vanniyars in education and
Pattali Makkal Constitutional Validity Empirical Data
employment within the Most Backward Classes
2022 Katchi v.
category was unconstitutional. The Court observed Vanniyar Reservation
Mayileruperumal
that the reservation was not supported by empirical
data on backwardness.

The SC upheld the Union government's 'One Rank

Indian Ex
One Pension' policy for retired army officers. The
Servicemen
2022 Court held that the policy was not discriminatory and One Rank One Pension
Movement v. Union
the Union had the liberty to decide how it was
of India
applied.

In this case, the Supreme Court delivered a split

verdict on the hijab ban in educational institutions.
Aishat Shifa v. State Dress Code Gender Equality
One judge upheld the ban, while the other ruled in
2022 of Karnataka (Hijab
favor of the students' right to wear the hijab. The Religious Freedom
Ban Case)
case has been referred to a larger bench for a final
decision.

The Supreme Court held that: since the ‘local

government’ falls in Entry-5 of List II, of the
7th Schedule, therefore it is the State Legislature
State of Rajasthan alone which is competent to legislate in respect of Local government Municipalities
2022
v. Ashok Khetoliya the municipalities with only one limitation that the centre state relationship
provisions of the State Act cannot be inconsistent
with the mandate of the scheme of Part IXA of the
constitution.

The case concerns the Government of National

Capital Territory (Amendment) Act, 2021, which gives
greater powers to the Lieutenant Governor (L-G) over
the elected government of Delhi, has been decided.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Delhi
2021 Government of NCT government, affirming that the elected government
(Decided- of Delhi v Union of has control over services and day-to-day CS Relations Delhi Federalism
2023) India administration, except for matters concerning land,
public order, and police. This judgment reaffirmed
the principles of representative democracy and
separation of powers. The Court held that the L-G is
bound by the "aid and advice" of the elected
government in these areas.

Having decided that seats in the All India Quota can

be reserved for OBC candidates in January 2021, the Affirmative Action Equal Protection of Law
Neil Aurelio Nunes
2021 SC will decide whether the Union government’s ₹8
v Union of India Equality Reservations
lakh annual income criteria for determining EWS
status in the forward castes is constitutional.

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 5

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

The Indian
Federation Of App The Supreme Court will decide whether gig workers
2021 Based Transport fall under the scope of 'unorganised workers' and Gig Workers
Workers (IFAT) v are eligible for social security benefits
Union of India

The Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality

of Regulations issued by the Telecom Regulatory
Indian Broadcasting
Authority of India imposing a lower limit on the price
and Digital
that broadcasters can charge for a ‘bouquet’ of
2021 Foundation v Bodies TRAI
channels. The Court will decide whether the
Telecom Regulatory
Regulations violate the broadcasters’ Right to
Authority of India
Freedom of Speech and Expression and their Right to
Engage in Free Trade.

SC decided that a candidate with locomotor disability

must be provided reasonable accommodation
even if their disability is below the benchmark of
40%. A civil services examination candidate who had
writer’s cramp requested a scribe for the exam. The
UPSC denied the request on the ground that the
Vikash Kumar v extent of his disability was assessed at 6%, far below
Union Public the benchmark of 40%. The Court held that the
2021 Disability Equality
Service obligations of the State under the Rights of Persons
Commission (UPSC) with Disabilities Act, 2016
go beyond a formal guarantee of non-discrimination.
The State must make reasonable accommodations
to provide an appropriate environment for persons
with disabilities. The Court also held that the State
must take a case-by-case approach to assess each
candidate’s requirements.

SC issued a judgment declaring that the Army’s

criteria on Permanent Commissions indirectly
discriminated against woman. In this case, 86 Army
officers had approached the SC alleging gender-
based discrimination in the Indian Army. The army
officers were women who had a Short Service
Commission (SSC) and were applying for a
Lt. Col. Nitisha and
Permanent Commission (PC) in the army. Although
2021 Ors. v Union of Equality Gender
the criteria adopted to select women PC officers
India
were nearly identical to the one used for men, some
sub-criteria imposed an unfair burden on women.
The Court held that the Army’s criteria indirectly
discriminated
against women officers. The Bench stated that
invisible forms of discrimination must be eliminated
to achieve substantive equality.

SC heard an appeal against the life sentence of a

man convicted for raping a visually impaired woman
belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe (SC/ST) community. The Court recognised
Patan Jaman Vali v disability, caste and gender as factors that
2021 State of Andhra contributed to the marginalisation of a rape victim. Caste Disability Equality Gender
Pradesh Chandrachud J’s Bench upheld the life sentence,
recognising that the harm to the victim was
aggravated by the intersecting structures of
oppression she was subjected to as a ‘blind Schedule
Caste woman’.

Persons with Disabilities have the right to reservation

in promotions. Through an expansive reading
of Article 16 of the Constitution of India with Affirmative Action Disability
State of Kerala v. the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the
2021 Equal Protection of Law Equality
Leesamma Joseph Court held that reasonable accommodations must be
made for persons with disabilities. Reasonable Reservations
accommodations would include reservations in
promotions.

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 6

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

In July 2021, an international consortium of 17 media

organisations and Amnesty International called the
Pegasus Project leaked a list of 50,000 phone
numbers which were potentially targeted by the
Pegasus Spyware. Multiple petitions were filed by
affected journalists, activists and politicians,
demanding a judicial probe to investigate the Indian
government’s use of the spyware.
In Oct 2021, the Court passed an interim order in
Manohar Lal Sharma v Union of India, constituting a
Technical Committee to conduct the Pegasus probe.
The Bench emphasised that even a lawful
encroachment on the Right to Privacy has to be
proportional to the purpose of the law. The Union
Manohar Lal Government cannot invoke national security to evade Cyber Security Freedom of Press Pegasus
2021 Sharma v Union of accountability. The Bench recognised the link
India between the Right to Privacy and Freedom of Privacy

Speech, noting that a breach of privacy can lead to

self-censorship. They said that press freedom and
privacy were allies and that the fear of surveillance is
an ‘assault’ on the press, which is the fourth pillar of
democracy.
The Bench appointed a Technical Committee to be
overseen by former Supreme Court Justice R.V.
Raveendran. This Committee will determine whether
Pegasus was used to surveil Indian citizens, and
whether it was done lawfully. They must also make
recommendations on improving the nation’s
cybersecurity measures to protect citizen’s Right to
Privacy and provide grievance redressal mechanisms
in cases of illegal surveillance.

Assam Sanmilita This case will decide the constitutional validity of Assam Accord Citizenship
2021 Mahasangha v. Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which is the
Union of India result of the Assam Accord. Constitutional Validity

The late Journalist Vinod Dua was charged with

sedition over a YouTube video he made in 2021,
criticising the government. He challenged the FIR,
arguing that he was merely exercising his rights
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and that the
offense of sedition was not made out. He also sought
directions to ensure that no FIR be registered against
a person belonging to the media with at least 10
Vinod Dua v Union years of standing unless cleared by a Judicial
2021 Freedom of Press Privacy Sedition
of India Committee
In June 2021, a two-judge bench of the
Court quashed the FIR, but rejected the plea of a
committee for screening FIRs on journalists. Relying
on the judgment in
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd v
Union of India the Court stated that the freedom of
press was the ‘heart of social and political
intercourse’.

The SC held: Constitutional courts can grant bail on

grounds of violation of fundamental rights, even in
cases under UAPA where there are statutory
Union of India v.
2021 restrictions on bail. Prolonged pre-trial detention Bail Rights Speedy Trial UAPA
K.A. Najeeb
violating the right to speedy trial under Article 21 can
be a ground for granting bail, despite UAPA's
stringent provisions against bail.

The SC held: The Maratha reservation exceeding

50% ceiling limit is unconstitutional as it violates
Jaishri Laxmanrao
equality and the basic structure doctrine. States Basic Structure Constitutional Amendments
Patil v. Chief
2021 cannot identify socially and educationally backward
Minister Maratha Reservation Reservations
classes after the 102nd Constitutional Amendment,
Maharashtra
as this power now lies exclusively with the
President.

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 7

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

The SC held: Right to Protest and Public Spaces:

The right to protest in public places is not absolute
and must be balanced with public convenience and
Amit Sahni v.
maintenance of law and order. Protests occupying
2021 Commissioner of Public Order Right to Protest
public ways indefinitely are not acceptable, and
Police
authorities can take action to keep public spaces free
from
obstructions.

While highlighting the importance of free and fair

State of Goa v elections to a constitutional democracy, the Supreme Democracy Elections
2021 Fouziya Imtiaz Court directed States to ensure that only
Sheikh independent persons shall be appointed as Election Equal Protection of Law

Commissioners.

SC Cleared Central Vista : The Court began the year

by adopting a more deferential approach in policy
matters vis-à-vis the Executive, clearing the Union
Rajeev Suri v Union Government’s Central Vista Redevelopment Project.
2021 Judicial Activism Separation of Powers
of India From April onwards, it began to tread more
proactively into the realm of policy-making to provide
relief from the second wave of the COVID-19
pandemic.

A three-judge Bench struck down the Constitution

(Ninety Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011, which
restricted the power of State Assemblies to legislate
on various issues concerning Co-operative Societies.
Co-operative Societies are an item in the State List,
Union of India v and their actions heavily impact the economy. The
2021 CS Relations Cooperatives Federalism
Rajendra Shah 97th Amendment was passed without ratification
from half of all State Assemblies.
The Court held that the Union government was not
competent to legislate on State List items through
constitutional amendments without following proper
procedure , as per Article 368(2).

In July 2021, the Court held that the Delhi Legislative

Assembly was competent to issue summons to
persons other than sitting ministers. The Assembly’s
Committee on Peace and Harmony had previously
exercised legislative privilege to issue summons to
the Facebook India Vice-President, Ajit Mohan, while
Ajit Mohan v investigating factors that may disrupt communal
Legislative harmony after the 2020 Delhi riots.
2021 Committees Parliamentary Democracy
Assembly of NCT The Court noted that aside from law making,
Delhi Legislative Committees also facilitate meaningful
stakeholder discussions and provide
recommendations that form the basis of legislative
decisions. This is done through sub-committees like
the Peace and Harmony Committee. The exercise of
privilege to further this role is within the powers of
the Legislative Assembly.

2021 Madras Bar In July, a three-judge Bench of SC struck down Separation of Powers Tribunals
Association v Union provisions of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation
of India and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 related to
terms of services of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson
and other members of statutory tribunals.
The Ordinance stated that the Central Government
would be responsible for making rules on the
appointments, salaries, tenures of the members of
tribunals. It set the tenure of members of the
tribunals to four years, and set the minimum age for
appointment at 50 years.
The Ordinance was challenged on the grounds that
allowing the Executive to make rules on tenure,
salary and appointment would violate the principle of
separation of powers and adversely affect the
independence of judicial bodies. Further, the
amendments on tenure were contrary to

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 8

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area
Madras Bar Association III.
A 2:1 majority struck down the amendments on the
minimum age limit on the grounds that it violated
Madras Bar Association III. The Court also struck
down the provision that set the tenure of members to
four years on the grounds that the security of tenure
and salary for tribunal members is key to their
independence. The provisions violated the principle
of separation of powers.

16 appeals were filed before the Supreme Court

against Orders of the National Green Tribunal (NGT)
by various State Governments and corporations.
These Orders were issued by the NGT in exercise
of suo moto powers. The appeals challenged the
NGT’s suo moto powers on the basis that the NGT
was a statutory tribunal, and did not inherently
have suo moto powers as they were not explicitly
mentioned in the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
Municipal
In October, 2021, a three-judge Bench held that the
Corporation of
2021 NGT may exercise Separation of Powers Suo-Moto Tribunals
Greater Mumbai v
suo moto powers to execute its functions under the
Ankita Sinha
NGT Act, 2010. The Bench emphasised that the main
aim of the NGT was to protect the environment; a
purpose covered by the right to a healthy
environment within the constitutionally
guaranteed Right to Life. In order to protect the Right
to Life, the statutory provisions should be amplified
to serve this purpose. Hence, the NGT may
exercise suo moto powers to better serve its
mandate.

The SC on: Bail and Rights of Accused: The right to

default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC is an
Sudha Bharadwaj
2021 indefeasible right that becomes fundamental once Bail Rights
Bail v. NIA
the conditions are met, even if the application is filed
prematurely.

The Supreme Court will decide if electoral laws need

K Sathyan v Union to be reformed to accommodate new technology to
2021 Elections Voting Rights
of India expand voting rights to migrants, NRIs and to curb
fraudulent votes.

Right to Privacy and Government Surveillance: The

Supreme Court ordered an independent probe into
the Pegasus spyware allegations, stating that
national security cannot be used as a blanket
justification to avoid judicial review. The Supreme Government Surveillance National Security
Pegasus Spyware
2021 Court criticized the government for not providing
Case Privacy
enough information but has refrained from making
any final conclusions until all aspects of the inquiry
are completed. As of now, the case remains pending
with no definitive judgment
yet.

Thangjam Santa The Supreme Court will decide if the guidelines

Singh @Santa imposing a permanent ban on transgender persons,
2021 LGBTQIA+
Khurai v. Union of men who have sex with men, and female sex workers
India & Ors from donating blood is constitutional.

The SC held: The right to be forgotten is recognized

as part of the fundamental right to privacy under
Jorawer Singh Article 21 of the Constitution. Courts may grant
2021 Mundy v. Union of interim relief to remove online judgments/records Right to Privacy Right to be Forgotten
India that could cause prejudice to an individual, even if
they were acquitted, balancing this with public
interest.

The Supreme Court held that only Parliament has the

2020 Ashwini Kumar
authority to legislate on setting a uniform age of
(Decided- Upadhyay v Union Marriage Personal Laws Religion UCC
marriage for both men and women, rather than the
2023) of India
judiciary intervening to mandate this change.

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 9

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

The Supreme Court will decide whether the laws on

Ashwini Kumar
adoption and guardianship must be uniform,
2020 Upadhyay v Union Religion UCC
disregarding the religion or gender of persons
of India
involved.

The SC held: Daughters have equal coparcenary

rights in Hindu joint family property by birth,
regardless of whether the father was alive or
not when the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Coparcenary Rights Gender Equality
Vineeta Sharma v.
2020 Succession Act came into effect. The 2005
Rakesh Sharma Hindu Succession Act
amendment granting equal coparcenary rights to
daughters is retroactive in nature, applying from the
date of birth of the
daughter.

Supreme Court is deciding whether the Transgender

Swati Bidhan
Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 violates
2020 Baruah v Union of Equality Transgenders
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15,
India
16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Municipal
The Supreme Court held that the NGT has suo moto
Corporation of
2020 powers to execute its functions under the NGT Act, NGT Suo-Moto
Bombay v Ankita
2010.
Sinha

The Supreme Court will decide whether laws on Constitutional Validity

Ashwini Kumar
succession and inheritance must be uniform,
2020 Upadhyay v Union Minority Educational Institutions Property
disregarding the religion or gender of persons
of India
involved. Religion UCC

The Supreme Court initiated suo moto criminal

In Re Prashant contempt proceedings against Advocate Prashant
2020 Contempt Suo-Moto
Bhushan & Anr Bhushan and Twitter India, on the basis of two tweets
posted by Bhushan on the social media platform.

Anuradha Bhasin vs SC ruled that freedom to access the

2020 Union of India and Internet is a fundamental right and is protected under Internet
Ors, Article 19(1)(a)

The SC held:

1. Legislative immunity under Articles 105(2) and

194(2) of the Indian Constitution does not protect
lawmakers from prosecution for accepting bribes.
2019
Sita Soren v Union
(Decided- 2. Overturned the previous precedent set by the V. Corruption Legislative Immunity
of India
2024) Narasimha Rao v. State case, which had extended
such immunity to legislators.

3. The Court emphasized that bribery undermines

the democratic process and is not shielded by
parliamentary privileges

Several writ petitions have challenged the

2019 constitutionality of the Constitution (One Hundred
Youth for Equality v
(Decided- and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which introduces Reservations
Union of India
2022) reservations for Economically Weaker Sections
(EWS).

N Chandrababu SC ordered the Election Commission to increase the

2019 Naidu v Union of number of election booths that undergo VVPAT slip Elections
India matching.

The Supreme Court will decide if Sections 3 and 5 of Abortion Article 21 Gender
Swati Agarwal v the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
2019 Medical Termination of Pregnancy
Union of India violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India,
1950. Reproductive Rights

The Supreme Court will decide whether practices

Yasmeen Zuber prohibiting the entry of women into mosques violates Religious Rights
2019 Ahmad Peerzade v. the right to equality under Article 14 of the
Union of India Constitution and whether such a right can be Women’s Entry into Mosques

enforced against non-state actors.

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 10

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

Ayodhya Temple land dispute: The Supreme Court

overturned the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment Ayodhya Dispute Land Title
M. Siddiq (D) v.
2019 that divided the title to the Babri Masjid / Ram
Mahant Suresh Das Religious Rights
Janmabhoomi site. It awarded the title to the deity,
Shri Ram Virajman.

The Supreme Court is hearing two separate

Sajal Awasthi v. challenges to the constitutional validity of the 2019
2019 Constitutional Validity Security Laws UAPA
Union of India amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967.

1. Held that lack of judicial dominance in tribunal

selection committees violates separation of powers,
Rojer Mathew v. Appointment Process
2. Directed reformulation of tribunal rules to ensure
2019 South Indian Bank
non-discriminatory service conditions. 3. Questioned Independence of Judiciary Tribunal Rules
Ltd.
passage of tribunal provisions through Finance Act
as Money Bill

The Supreme court must decide whether the 2019

All Assam Minority amendment to the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964
2019 Students Union v. imposes unreasonable and/or arbitrary conditions on Citizenship Foreigners Tribunal NRC
Union of India persons appealing exclusion from the National
Register of Citizens.

The Supreme Court decriminalised adultery, striking

Joseph Shine v
2018 down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Adultery Gender
Union of Indi
(IPC).

Lok Prahari v. Union The SC Mandated declaration of income sources by

2018 Disclosure Representation of People Act
of India candidates (of an election) and associates/spouses.

The Supreme Court judged that the Chief Minister

and not the Lieutenant Governor (LG) is the executive
CS Relations Constitutional Governance
Government of NCT head of the National Capital Territory (NCT)
2018 of Delhi v Union of government. Hence, the LG is bound by the aid and Council of Ministers Delhi Federalism
India advice of the Council of Ministers on all matters
Lieutenant Governor
where the Delhi Assembly has to the power to make
laws.

SC upheld the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of

Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016 as constitutional, however, it struck down
individual sections of the Act as unconstitutional. It
Justice K.S.
ruled that the Act empowers disenfranchised
Puttaswamy v
sections of society by providing them better access
2018 Union of India Aadhar Privacy Welfare Schemes
to fundamental entitlements, such as State subsidies.
[Aadhaar
The Court held that the Act was competently passed
Judgement]
by Parliament, even though it was passed as a
Money Bill. The Court held that the Act does not
violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21.

Navtej Singh Johar The SC unanimously struck down Section 377 of the Homosexuality LGBTQIA+ Right to Privacy
2018 v UOI; Akkai Indian Penal Code, to the extent that it criminalised
Section 377
Padmashali v UOI same-sex relations between consenting adults.

The Supreme Court is monitoring steps taken by High

In re: Filling up of
2018 Courts and State Governments to fill vacant judicial Judicial Reforms Suo-Moto
Vacancies
posts in the District and Subordinate Courts.

The Supreme Court referred the issue of female

genital mutilation (FGM) to a larger constitutional
bench for further examination. The petitioner sought
a ban on FGM, arguing that it violated fundamental Female Circumcision Human Rights
Sunita Tiwari v.
2018 rights. The Court acknowledged concerns about
Union of India Religious Practices
health, dignity, and bodily autonomy but did not issue
a final decision, leaving it to the larger bench to
address the complex balance between religious
practices and fundamental rights.

SC upheld the fundamental right to assembly and

Mazdoor Kisan
peaceful protest but ordered it to be regulated in
2018 Shakti Sangathan v. Assembly Regulation Right to Protest
such a way that they do not cause inconvenience to
UOI
residents.

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 11

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

The SC held: The requirement to demonstrate

Jarnail Singh v. backwardness of SC/STs for reservation in Reservation in Promotion
2018 Lachhmi Narain promotions was struck down, but the requirements
Gupta of inadequate representation and administrative Reservation- SC/ST Reservations

efficiency were upheld.

Shyam Narayan The SC on: National anthem in cinemas: Playing the Fundamental Duties
2018 Chouksey v. Union national anthem before movie screenings in cinema
of India halls is optional, not mandatory. National Anthem in Cinemas

The SC held: The right to die with dignity is a

fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution, and passive euthanasia is permissible Living Wills Passive Euthanasia
Common Cause v.
2018 with guidelines. Advance directives for end-of-life
Union of India Right to Die
care ("living wills") are legally valid when executed
by terminally ill patients or those in persistent
vegetative state.

The Supreme Court lifted the ban on women aged 10

Indian Young to 50 entering the Sabarimala temple, ruling it
Lawyers unconstitutional. The Court held that the ban violated Religious Freedom Sabarimala Temple
2018
Association v. State fundamental rights to equality and religious freedom, Women’s Rights
of Kerala and customs that discriminate on gender grounds
cannot be protected under the Constitution.

A Constitution Bench at the SC has declared that the Fundamental Rights Gender Equality
Shayara Bano v
2017 practice of instantaneous Triple Talaq as
Union of India Religion Triple Talaq
unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court will review whether the Union

Mohammad Deportation Human Rights
can deport Rohingya Refugees, a Muslim minority
2017 Salimullah v. Union
from Myanmar, back to Myanmar, the country of their Rohingya Refugees
of India
persecution.

The 7-judge bench held that appealing to the

ascriptive identities of any candidate and that of the
voters constitutes a ‘corrupt practice’ under Section
123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
This case has a long history of 25 years in the
Abhiram Singh v C. Supreme Court where two separate appeals have Elections Religion Religious Appeals
2017
D. Commachen been tagged together on the limited question of Representation of People Act
the scope of Sec. 123(3) of RPA, 1951. Section 123 of
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (RPA) declares
appeals on ascriptive identity markers – like religion,
caste, language, community – as ‘corrupt electoral
practices’.

Krishna Kumar Ordinances Parliamentary Democracy

The SC held that unfettered re-promulgation of
2017 Singh v State of
ordinances is not permissible by the Constitution. Separation of Powers
Bihar

Justice K.S.
Puttaswamy v The Supreme Court held that a fundamental right to
2017 Article 21 Right to Privacy
Union of India privacy is guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
[Right to Privacy]

SC held that the power of contempt has to be

Het Ram Beniwal v. exercised sparingly and in cases when there is a
2017 Contempt
Raghuveer Singh, calculated effort to undermine the judiciary, and not
in a routine manner.

Subramanian The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality

2016 Swamy v Union of of the criminal offence of defamation under Sections Defammation Speech
India 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

The SC held: A Speaker cannot disqualify members

Nabam Rebia v.
under the Tenth Schedule while a motion for the
Deputy Speaker Judicial Review Removal Motion
Speaker's own removal is pending, as it would
2016 Arunachal Pradesh
compromise the impartiality required of the office. Speaker Disqualification
Legislative
The Court also affirmed that such decisions are
Assembly
subject to judicial review.

2015 Anoop Baranwal v The Supreme Court directed that appointments to the Bodies ECI
(Decided- Union of India Election Commission of India should be made by the
2023) President on the advice of a committee comprising

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 12

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area
the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition (or largest
opposition party) in Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice
of India. This appointment process was to be
followed until Parliament enacts a law for appointing
Election Commissioners, in order to ensure the
independence of the Election Commission.

In SC: The National Judicial Appointments

Commission (NJAC) was declared unconstitutional
Supreme Court as it violated the independence of the judiciary,
Advocates-on- which is part of the basic structure of the Judicial Appointments
2015
Record Association Constitution. The Collegium system for appointing Judicial Independence NJAC
v. Union of India judges to the higher judiciary was reinstated,
affirming judicial primacy in the appointment process
over increased executive involvement.

The SC held: Section 66A of the Information

Technology Act was struck down as unconstitutional
for violating the freedom of speech guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court Freedom of Speech Online Speech
Shreya Singhal v.
2015 read down Section 79 of the IT Actto hold that online
UOI Section 66A IT Act
intermediaries are only obligated to take down
content on receiving an order from a court or
government authority, not based on private
complaints.

The SC held: Panchayat election eligibility: The

Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act 2015,
Rajbala v. State of which imposed educational qualifications and other Article 14 Educational Qualification
2015
Haryana criteria for contesting panchayat elections, is Panchayat Elections
constitutional and does not violate Article 14 of the
Constitution.

The SC held that: 1. Held that tribunals vested with

HC jurisdiction must be free from executive
Madras Bar
interference. 2. Struck down provisions of
2014 Association v. Tribunal Rules
Companies Act on composition of NCLT/NCLAT. 3.
Union of India
Directed reformulation of rules for tribunal
appointments

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity

of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The Court ruled that:

1. The Enforcement Directorate's powers of search,

2014 Vijay Madanlal
seizure, and arrest under PMLA are valid.
(Decided- Choudhary v Union Corruption Money Laundering
2022) of India
2. The stringent bail conditions and the reversal of
the burden of proof are constitutional.

3. Statements made to the ED during investigation

are admissible as evidence.

The SC held that: Transgender persons have

the right to decide their self-identified gender,
which is to be recognized by the state as male,
female or third gender. Transgender persons are Gender Identity Reservations
2014 NALSA v. UOI
entitled to fundamental rights under the Transgender Rights
Constitution and should be treated as a socially and
educationally backward class eligible for
reservations.

The SC held that “The State should justify every

Jayalalithaa v. State
2014 deprivation of life or liberty before an impartial Article 21 Right to Life
of Karnataka
tribunal”.

held by SC: Arrest guidelines: Police officers should

not automatically arrest persons accused Arrest Guidelines Police Powers
Arnesh Kumar v.
2014 under Section 498A IPC or other offenses
State of Bihar Section 498A IPC
punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years without
following the procedure under Section 41 CrPC.

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 13

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

The SC held that: Registration of FIR is mandatory

under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure if the information received discloses
Lalita Kumari v. CrPC Section 154 FIR Registration
commission of a cognizable offense. Police officers
2014 Government of
cannot avoid registering FIR and must do so Police Duty
Uttar Pradesh
immediately, except in certain limited circumstances
where a preliminary inquiry may be conducted before
registration.

The SC ruled that any MLA, MLC or MP who was

found guilty of a crime and given a minimum of 2 Convicted MPs/MLAs Elections
Lily Thomas v
2013 years imprisonment would cease to be a member of
Union of India Office Holding Representation of People Act
the House with immediate effect.

CEC v. Jan The SC held that: Person in Prison cannot contest

2013 Election Law Prisoners Right to Contest
Chowkidar election.

The SC held that: The citizens have a fundamental

Ramlila Maidan
right to assembly and peaceful protest which
2012 Incident v. Home Assembly Public Disorder Right to Protest
cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive or
Secretary UOI
Legislative Action

Mohd. Ajmal Amir The SC held that Right to consult and be defended by
2012 Kasab v. State of a legal practitioner of choice is available under Art. Right to consult a lawyer
Maharashtra 22 (1).

Vishwanath v. Sarla
The SC held that: Cruelty was held as a valid
2012 Vishwanath Cruelty Divorce Family Law
ground for divorce.
Agrawal

The SC held that: The government has a

constitutional obligation to disclose information
about unaccounted monies held by Indian citizens in Black Money Government Disclosure
Ram Jethmalani v.
2011 foreign bank accounts. The Court can monitor
Union of India Public Interest
investigations into black money cases to ensure they
are conducted properly, given the importance of the
issue to the public interest and national economy.

The Supreme Court held that: any law enacted by the

Parliament with respect to ‘extra-territorial’ aspects
G.V.K. Industries v.
2011 or causes which have no impact on or nexus with Extra Territorial application of laws
Income Tax Officer
India would be ultra vires to Article of the
Constitution.

The SC that: Passive euthanasia is permissible in

certain circumstances, subject to approval by a High
Aruna Shanbaug v. Court following strict guidelines laid down by the
2011 Article 21 Euthanasia Right to Die
Union of India Supreme Court. The right to refuse medical
treatment is part of Article 21, but active euthanasia
is not permissible under Indian law.

The SC held that: The practice of using tribal

civilians as Special Police Officers (SPOs) to fight
Nandini Sundar v. Human Rights Special Police Officers
Maoists is unconstitutional and violates human
2011 State of
rights. The state must cease using SPOs in counter- Tribals
Chhattisgarh
insurgency operations and recall all firearms given to
them.

It was held by SC that “Brain Electrical Activation

Profile (BEAP)” test and Polygraph test, during Article 20 Polygraph test
Selvi v. State of
2010 investigation would be an unjustified intrusion into
Karnataka Right against self incrimination
mental privacy and would be violative of the ‘right
against self-incrimination’”.

The SC held that: The President has the power to

remove Governors at any time without giving
reasons, as they hold office during the pleasure of
the President. However, this power cannot be Constitutional Validity Governor Removal
2010 B.P. Singhal v. UOI
exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable Presidential Power
manner. The power of removal must be exercised
in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and
compelling reasons

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 14

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

The SC held that: The High Court, under Article 226

State of West of the Constitution, can direct the CBI to investigate a
Bengal v. cognizable offence alleged to have been committed
2010 Committee for within a state without that state's consent. Such a CBI Investigation Federalism High Court
Protection of direction by the High Court does not violate the
Democratic Rights federal structure of the Constitution or the doctrine
of separation of powers.

The Supreme Court held that the need for judicial

independence does not stand in contradiction with
Central Public
that for transparency. It observed that whether or not
Information Officer,
information is subject to public disclosure must be
2010 Supreme Court of Judicial Reforms RTI
decided on a case-by-case basis, by weighing
India v Subhash
competing public interest claims. For example, the
Chandra Agarwal
right to information may have to be weighed against
the right to privacy.

Decriminalization of Section 377: The Delhi HC held

Naz Foundation v. that, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, insofar LGBTQ+ Rights
2009 Government of NCT as it criminalizes consensual sexual acts of adults in
of Delhi private, violates Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Section 377 Decriminalization
Constitution.

Wildlife First v
The Supreme Court is assessing the constitutional
2008 Ministry of Forest Climate Change Environment
validity of the Forest Rights Act 2006.
and Environment

The SC held that if a law is included in the 9th

Schedule of the Indian Constitution, it can still be
examined and confronted in court. The 9th Schedule
of the Indian Constitution contains a list of acts and
I.R Coelho v State laws. The Waman Rao ruling ensured that acts and Basic Structure Judicial Review
2007
of Tamil Nadu laws mentioned in the IX schedule till 24 April 1973, Ninth Schedule
shall not be shall not be challenged, but any attempt
to amend or add more acts to that schedule will
suffer close inspection and examination by the
judiciary system.

The SC held: 1. Restricted scope of Governor's

Rameshwar Prasad discretion in approving/withholding bills, 2. Governor’s Report Judicial Review
2006
v. Union of India Governor's actions subject to judicial review, 3. State Assembly Dissolution
President must act on advice of Council of Ministers.

The Supreme Court upheld the removal of the

domicile requirement for Rajya Sabha elections,
allowing candidates to contest from any state
Kuldip Nayar v.
2006 regardless of residency. The Court also validated the Domicile Requirements Elections
Union of India
open ballot system for these elections, aimed at
curbing cross-voting. The changes were found not to
violate federalism or democratic principles.

The Supreme Court issued directives for police

reforms to ensure functional autonomy of the police
and enhance accountability. The Court mandated
Prakash Singh v. the establishment of State Security Commissions,
2006 Accountability Police Reforms
Union of India fixed tenure for police chiefs, separation of
investigation from law and order functions, and
Police Complaints Authorities at state and district
levels.

SC on reservation in promotion: Three constitutional

Requirement: 1. Quantifiable data on backwardness Promotion Quotas Reservation- SC/ST
2006 M Nagraj v. UOI
of SC/ST, 2. inadequacy of representation, 3. Overall Reservations
administrative efficiency.

The SC held: Minority educational institutions are

exempt from implementing reservation policies for
Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and
P.A. Inamdar v.
Other Backward Classes (OBC) as outlined in Article
2005 State of Minority Institutions Reservations
15(5) of the Indian Constitution. This exemption is
Maharashtra
based on the premise that these institutions are a
separate class with rights protected under Article
30(1).

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 15

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

The SC held: BCCI doesn't come under the

definition of 'State' under Art. 12. BCCI is
Zee Telefilms v. UOI
2005 not financially, functionally and Article 12 BCCI State Definition
(BCCI Case)
administratively controlled by the government and
so it cannot be held as State

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether

the Tandava dance was an essential religious
practice of the Ananda Marga faith. The Court
concluded that the Tandava dance was not an
Commissioner of essential religious practice. It noted that the practice
Police v. Acharya was introduced more than a decade after the
2004 Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices
Jagadisharananda founding of the faith and that its absence would not
Avadhuta fundamentally alter the religion. Therefore, the
performance of the Tandava dance, especially in
public, was not protected under Articles 25 and
26 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguard
religious freedoms.

M.P. Special Police The SC held that ‘Governor can act against advice of
2004 Establishment v. Council of Ministers in granting sanction for Governor’s Power
State of M.P. prosecution of ministers for corruption’.

The Supreme Court directed the Election

Commission to introduce VVPAT systems in
People's Union for Electoral Reforms VVPAT
electronic voting machines (EVMs) in a phased
2003 Civil Liberties v.
manner. VVPAT is necessary to ensure free and fair Voter Confidence
Union of India
elections and to restore voter confidence in the EVM
system.

The Supreme Court held that: the constitution gives

autonomy to the centre and the states within their
Javed v. State of respective fields. The legislation of one state cannot
2003 centre state relationship
Haryana be held to be discriminatory against its citizens
simply because Parliament or State Legislatures of
other states have chosen not to enact similar laws.

The SC emphasized the distinction between religious

education and religious instruction. It noted that
while Article 28 prohibits religious instruction in
Aruna Roy v. Union state-funded institutions, it does not bar education Article 28 Education about Religion
2002
of India about religions. Such education can foster Religious Education
understanding and respect for all religions, which is
consistent with the secular nature of the Indian
Constitution.

The SC held that the right to receive recognition is a

necessary concomitant to the right of minorities
T.M.A. Pai Legal Recognition
under Art. 30(1). However, in granting affiliation, it is
2002 Foundation v. State
open to a university to impose reasonable conditions Minority Educational Institutions
of Karnataka
upon a minority institution for maintaining the
requisite educational standard and efficiency.

The SC held: Judiciary is under the meaning of Curative Petition Finality of Judgments
Rupa Ashok Hurra
2002 ‘State’ only when performing administrative
v. Ashok Hurra Judicial Review
functions and NOT judicial functions.

Union of India v. The SC held: Voters have a fundamental right to

Association for know the antecedents of candidates contesting Disclosure Election Candidates
2002
Democratic elections, including their criminal, educational, and Public Information
Reforms financial background.

The SC made it compulsory for : Disclosure of Info

relating to criminal antecedents, educational Criminal Background Election Transparency
2002 ADR v. UOI
qualification and personal assets of a candidate Public Information
contesting election

The Supreme Court upheld the construction of

the Sardar Sarovar Dam, emphasizing the need for
Narmada Bachao development projects while requiring proper
2000 Andolan v. Union of rehabilitation for displaced people. The Court ruled Public interest Litigation
India that the dam was in the greater public interest and
should proceed, provided the rights of those
displaced were protected.

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 16

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

SC held: The opinion of the Chief Justice of India in

In Re: Special judicial appointments must be formed after Chief Justice's Primacy Collegium
1998
Reference 1 of 1998 consultation with a collegium of senior judges. The Judicial Appointments
Chief Justice's opinion has primacy.

SC on Tribal land rights: The government cannot

grant mining leases in Scheduled Areas to non-tribal Mining Leases Scheduled Areas
Samatha v. State of
1997 persons or private companies. Only the government,
Andhra Pradesh Tribal Rights
tribal people, or cooperatives of tribal people can
undertake mining activities in Scheduled Areas.

Anukul Chandra
The SC reaffirmed that right to vote is subject to
1997 Pradhan v. Union of Representation of People Act Right to Vote
statutory limitations.
India

SC held: Judicial review as part of basic

structure and Tribunals created under Articles 323A
L. Chandra Kumar v.
1997 and 323B cannot exercise the power of judicial Basic Structure Judicial Review Tribunals
Union of India
review of legislative action to the exclusion of the
High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Gender POSH Guidelines

Vishaka v. State of SC’s Sexual harassment at workplace
1997 Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace
Rajasthan guidelines: Eventually led to the POSH Act.
Women’s Rights

SC’s Guidelines on arrest and detention: Custodial

torture and deaths in police custody violate Article
21, and specific guidelines must be followed during
arrest and detention to protect arrestees' rights. The
D.K. Basu v. State
1997 guidelines issued by the Court, including Arrest Guidelines Custodial Torture
of West Bengal
requirements for arrest memos, medical
examinations, and informing relatives, are binding on
all states and union territories until incorporated into
legislation.

The SC held that: The financial costs of checking or

Indian Council for Climate Change Compensation
mitigating damage produced by pollution should lie
1996 Enviro-Legal Action
with the hazards which cause the pollution by Environmental Law Polluter Pays
v. UOI
choosing the 'POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE'.

The SC held that: The public trust doctrine is part of

Indian law, and the government holds natural
M.C. Mehta v. resources in trust for public use and enjoyment. Climate Change Environmental Law
1996
Kamal Nath Leasing ecologically fragile land to private entities for Natural Resources Public Trust Doctrine
commercial use violates the public trust doctrine and
can be struck down by courts.

The SC held that: Handcuffs and other fetters shall

Citizen for
not be forced upon a prisoner while lodged in jail or
1995 Democracy v. State Article 21 Handcuffing Prisoner's Rights
while in transport or transit from one jail to another
of Assam
or to the court or back.

The SC held: Parliament has the power to amend any

part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights,
under Article 368. The Supreme Court upheld the
17th Constitutional Amendment, ruling that there are
no express limitations on Parliament's power to Article 368 Constitutional Amendments
1995 Sajjan Singh v. U.O.I amend the Constitution, as long as the proper
Parliamentary Supremacy
procedure for amendments is followed. This decision
emphasized the Supremacy of Parliament in
constitutional amendments, though it sowed the
seeds for future limitations, as highlighted by the
dissenting judges.

Chameli Singh v. The SC held: Right to shelter is a fundamental Right Article 21 Fundamental Rights
1995
State of U.P. available to every citizen under Art. 21 Right to Shelter

1994 S.R. Bommai v. The SC held that: The power to impose President's Federalism Judicial Review
Union of India Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial
President’s Rule
review and must be used only in cases of genuine
breakdown of constitutional machinery in a state.
The federal structure and secularism are part of the

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 17

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area
basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be
altered even by constitutional amendments.

The SC held that: the phrase 'Voluntarily gives up

membership of a political party' under the 10th 10th Schedule Anti-Defection Law
1994 Ravi S. Naik v. UOI
Sch. Of the Constitution, has wider connotations and Voluntary Resignation
is not synonymous to resignation.

It was held by the SC that there is no violation of Art.

English Medium
30 where the State makes the mother tongue as the
Parents Association
1994 medium of instruction at primary level, and at higher Minority Educational Institutions
v. State of
level implements the 3-language formula making
Karnataka
state language compulsory.

The SC held: Collegium system for judicial

Supreme Court appointments: The opinion of the Chief Justice of
Advocates-on- India has primacy in matters of judicial Collegium System Executive Power
1993
Record Association appointments and transfers. The executive cannot Judicial Appointments
v. Union of India appoint judges to the higher judiciary without the
concurrence of the Chief Justice of India.

The SC held:

1. The right to education is a fundamental right under

Article 21 of the Constitution, but only up to age 14;
Unnikrishnan v. beyond that it is subject to economic capacity and Article 21 Private Institutions
1993 State of Andhra development of the state.
Pradesh Right to Education
2. Private unaided professional colleges can charge
higher fees than government institutions, but within
limits set by the government, and commercialization
of education is not permissible.

The SC upheld the constitutionality of the Tenth

Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which pertains
to the anti-defection law. The Court ruled that the Anti-Defection Law Judicial Review
Kihoto Hollohan v.
1992 Speaker's decisions on disqualification (pertaining to
Zachillhu and Ors. Tenth Schedule
defection) are subject to judicial review, but only after
a final decision is made, not at the interlocutory
stage.

The Supreme Court had held that even a minority

institution receiving aid from state funds was entitled
to accord preference to or reserve seats for
St. Stephen’s Admission Criteria
candidates belonging to its own community based on
1992 College v.
religion or language. However, the court allowed Minority Educational Institutions
University of Delhi
such institutions to admit students of its own
community to the extent of 50 per cent of the annual
intake.

The SC held: The right to education is a fundamental

Mohini Jain v. State
1992 right flowing from the right to life under Article 21 of Article 21 Equality Right to Education
of Karnataka
the Constitution.

The SC held:

1. Reservations for backward classes under Article

16(4) should not exceed 50% except in exceptional
Indra Sawhney v. circumstances, and the "creamy layer" must be
1992 Article 16(4) Creamy Layer Reservations
Union of India excluded from reservation benefits.

2. Reservations can be made for socially and

educationally backward classes based on caste, but
caste cannot be the sole criterion for backwardness.

Subhash Kumar v. The SC held: The right to get pollution free water Article 21 Climate Change
1991
State of Bihar and air is a fundamental right under Art. 21 Environmental Rights Pollution

Union Carbide Absolute Liability Bhopal Gas Tragedy

Bhopal gas tragedy compensation: The threshhold
1991 Corporation v.
of Absolute Liability was applied by the SC. Compensation
Union of India

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 18

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

The SC held:

1. Freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on

the ground that it may cause law and order
problems, unless there is a clear and present Censorship Freedom of Expression
S. Rangarajan v. P.
1989 danger of violence or incitement to violence.
Jagjivan Ram Law and Order
2. The standard to be applied for restricting freedom
of expression is that of a reasonable, strong-
minded, firm and courageous person, not that of a
weak and vacillating mind.

P.N. Dua v. Shiv The SC held: Mere Criticism of the court does not
1988 Contempt of Court Free Speech Judiciary
Shankar amount to contempt of court.

The SC held: 1. Upheld constitutional validity of

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 2. Stated that
S.P. Sampat Kumar total insulation of judiciary from executive
1987 Administrative Tribunals Act Tribunal
v. Union of India interference is a basic feature of the Constitution. 3.
Held that tribunals can be effective alternative
institutional mechanisms with judicial review powers.

The SC held:

1. Industries engaged in hazardous or inherently

dangerous activities that pose a potential threat to
the health and safety of the workers and the
community at large owe an absolute and non- Absolute Liability Climate Change
M.C. Mehta v. Union
1986 delegable duty to ensure safety.
of India Environmental Law Industrial Hazard

2. Such industries are absolutely liable to

compensate for harm caused by accidents in the
plant, even without proof of negligence or fault,
based on the principle of absolute liability that goes
beyond the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.

The SC held that ‘compelling students to sing the

national anthem against their religious beliefs violates
Bijoe Emmanuel v.
1986 Article 25, affirming the right to freedom of religion Article 25 National Anthem
State of Kerala
includes the freedom not to participate in activities
against one's beliefs’.

The SC held: The practice of repromulgating

ordinances repeatedly without placing them before
the legislature is a fraud on the
D.C. Wadhwa v. Constitution and subverts the democratic Constitutional Fraud Legislative Process
1986
State of Bihar legislative process. The Governor's power to Ordinances
promulgate ordinances is meant for exceptional
circumstances and cannot be used as a substitute
for regular law-making by the legislature.

The SC held:

1. Freedom of the press is an essential part of the

right to freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Indian Express v.
1986 Constitution. Article 19 Press Freedom Taxation
Union of India

2. While the government can impose taxes on

newspapers, such taxes must not be excessive or
prohibitive so as to curtail circulation and thereby
restrict freedom of expression.

The SC held: Illegal detention of a legislator to

Bhim Singh v. State Illegal Detention Legislative Rights
prevent him from attending an assembly session
1985 of Jammu &
violates his constitutional rights under Articles 21 Personal Liberty
Kashmir
and 22(2).

1985 Olga Tellis v. The SC held: Article 21 Eviction Right to Livelihood

Bombay Municipal
Corporation 1. The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution
includes the right to livelihood.

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 19

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area
2. Eviction of pavement dwellers without providing
alternative accommodation violates their right to
livelihood, but the right is not absolute and can be
restricted through fair procedures.

The SC held: Muslim women's right to alimony:

Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which
Shah Bano Begum
1985 provides for maintenance, applies to all citizens Alimony Muslim Women Section 125 CrPC
v. Union of India
regardless of religion, including divorced Muslim
women.

1. The Supreme Court can

treat a letter as a writ petition under Article 32 and
appoint commissioners to investigate alleged
Bandhua Mukti violations of fundamental rights, especially for
1984 Morcha v. Union of marginalized groups. Article 21 Bonded Labour Human Dignity
India
2. The right to live with human dignity is part of the
fundamental right to life under Article 21, and
includes protection from bonded labor and
inhuman working conditions.

The Supreme Court has laid down the “rarest of

Machhi Singh v. rare” doctrine that restricts the death penalty to
1983 Death Penalty Rarest of Rare
State of Punjab exceptionally heinous crimes. (Same as Bachan
Singh Case)

The Supreme Court held that religious

denominations must satisfy the following
requirements: -

S.P. Mittal v. Union

1983 1. It must be a collection of Individuals who have a Religious Denominations
of India
system of beliefs which they regard as conducive to
their spiritual well-being,2. It must have a common
organization, 3. It must be designated by a distinctive
name.

Mahendra Kumar Prisoner's Voting Rights

The SC upheld validity of Section 62(5) of RPA 1951,
1983 Shastri v. Union of
barring prisoners from voting. Representation of People Act
India

Randhir Singh vs. The SC held that ‘equal pay for equal work’ is a
1982 Equal Pay for Equal Work
Union of India Fundamental Right.

The SC held: The President's Ordinance making Judicial Review Ordinances

1981 A.K. Roy v. UOI
power is not beyond the scope of judicial review Presidential Power

The SC again reiterated the Basic Structure doctrine.

It also drew a line of demarcation as April 24th, 1973
Waman Rao v Union i.e.,’ the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, Basic Structure Judicial Review
1981
of India and held that it should not be applied retrospectively Ninth Schedule
to reopen the validity of any amendment to the
Constitution which took place prior to that date.

The SC held: The judiciary does not have primacy

S.P. Gupta v. Union over the executive in matters of judicial appointments Executive Power Judicial Appointments
1981
of India and transfers; consultation with the Chief Justice of Judicial Independence
India does not mean concurrence.

This case again strengthens the Basic Structure

doctrine. The SC judgement struck down 2 changes
made to constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act Basic Structure Constitutional Amendments
Minerva Mills v.
1980 1976, declaring them to be violative of the basic
Union of India Judicial Review
structure. The judgement makes it clear that the
Constitution, not the Parliament is supreme.

Bachan Singh v. The SC held: Death penalty can only be applied

1980 Article 21 Death Penalty Rarest of Rare
State of Punjab in 'Rarest of Rare' cases.

Central Coal Fields The SC held that ‘Effective Access to Justice’ is a

1980 Basic Structure
v. Jaiswal Coal Co. core proposition of the ‘Basic Structure’.

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 20

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

The SC held: Death Penalty must be imposed where

Rajendra Prasad v. the peril to social security is to such extent that Criminal Justice Death Penalty
1979
State of U.P. extinction of such person becomes essential for Social Security
survival of society.

The SC held: Enumerated the test to determine if an

R.D. Shetty v. entity is 'State' under Art. 12: 1. Financial assistance
1979 International Airport by the state, 2. Control of Management by Article 12 Public Function State
Authority of India State, 3. Functions carried out by the entity closely
related to governmental function

The SC held: Right to Speedy Trial: Detention of

Hussainara Khatoon under-trial prisioners, in jail for a period longer than Article 21 Right to Speedy Trial
1979
v. State of Bihar what they would have been sentenced if convicted, Undertrial Prisoners
was illegal and violative of Art. 21

Hargovind Pant v. The SC held: The office of Governor was not Autonomy Constitutional Status
1979
Raghukul Tilak subordinate or subservient to GOI Governor's Office

A main issue in this case whether the right to go

abroad is a part of the Right to Personal Liberty
under Article 21. The SC also ruled that is included in
Maneka Gandhi v. Article 21 Due Process Personal Liberty
1978 the Right to Personal Liberty. The SC also ruled that
Union of India Right to Life
the mere existence of an enabling law was not
enough to restrain personal liberty. Such a law must
also be “just, fair and reasonable”.

The phrase “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” was

notably articulated by the Supreme Court of India in
this landmark case. The court emphasized that-
State of Rajasthan detention should only be used when absolutely
1978 v. Balchand alias necessary, as it infringes on an individual's right to Bail Jurisprudence Criminal Law
Baliya liberty. The primary purpose of detention is to ensure
the accused's presence during the trial. If this can be
assured without detention, then granting bail is
preferred.

State of Karnataka The Supreme Court ruled in a 4:3 majority that

1977 v. Shri Ranganatha privately owned resources did not fall under "material Right to Property
Reddy resources of the community" under Article 39(b).

The Supreme Court held that the right to propagate

religion under Article 25 does not include the right
Rev. Stainislaus v. Article 25 Religious Conversion
to convert another person to one's own religion.
1977 State of Madhya
The Court upheld the validity of anti-conversion Right to Propagate Religion
Pradesh
laws, stating that they do not violate the Constitution
as they are aimed at preventing forced conversions.

The Supreme Court held that: the entries in the list

R.D. Joshi v. Ajit
1977 (7th Schedule) must be given wide meaning implying 7th Schedule centre state relationship
Mills
all ancillary and incidental powers.

The SC held:

1. During a declared Emergency, fundamental rights

under Article 21 can be suspended and courts cannot Emergency Fundamental Rights suspended
A.D.M. Jabalpur v.
1976 review detentions or issue writs of habeas corpus.
Shivkant Shukla Habeas Corpus
2. The President's order suspending enforcement of
fundamental rights is valid and cannot be challenged
in any court during the Emergency period.

The SC 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
Indira Nehru Gandhi
1975 grounds that it was beyond the Parliament’s Basic Structure
v. Raj Narain
amending power as it destroyed the Constitution’s
basic features.

1975 Ziyauddin The SC held that ‘using religious symbols or Representation of People Act
Burhanuddin appealing to religious sentiments for electoral gains
Bukhari v. is a corrupt practice’.

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 21

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area
Brijmohan Ramdass
Mehra

The Supreme Court held that the President and

Governor must act on the advice of the Council of
Shamsher Singh v. Ministers and have limited discretion. It affirmed
1974 Governor’s Power
State of Punjab that real executive power lies with the Council of
Ministers, making the President and
Governor ceremonial heads in most matters.

The SC held that ‘the minority means

A.M. Patroni v. Asst.
1974 a “community, which is numerically less than 50 Cultural and Educational Rights
Educational Officer
percent” of the total population’.

This judgement defined the basic structure of the

Constitution. The SC held that although no part of the
Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was
Kesavananda beyond the Parliament’s amending power, the basic
1973 Bharati v. State of structure of the constitution could not be abrogated Basic Structure
Kerala even by a constitutional amendment”. This is the
basis in Indian law in which the judiciary can strike
down any amendment passed by Parliament that is in
conflict with the basic structure of the Constitution.

The SC held that ‘Directive Principles and

Fundamental Right should be construed in harmony
State of Kerala v.
1973 with each other, and every attempt should be made DPSPs Fundamental Rights
N.M. Thomas
by the Court to resolve any apparent inconsistency
between them’.

The SC held: The "doctrine of prospective

R.C. Cooper v. overruling" was applied, holding that fundamental Doctrine of Overruling Nationalization
1973
Union of India rights can be amended by Parliament, but this Property Rights
ruling would only apply prospectively.

Madhav Rao Jivaji

The SC held: Executive action cannot contravene the
1971 Rao Scindia v. Executive Action
Constitution
Union of India

The SC clarified that no religious instruction is

D.A.V. College
allowed in state-maintained educational institutions,
1971 Bhatinda v. State of Article 28 Religious Instructions
but partially state-funded institutions may provide
Punjab
religious instruction under certain conditions.

The SC held: Parliament cannot amend the

Constitution to take away or abridge Fundamental Constitutional Amendments
Golaknath v. State
1967 Rights. Constitutional amendments are "law" under
of Punjab Fundamental Rights Judicial Review
Article 13(2) and therefore subject to judicial review if
they violate Fundamental Rights.

State of Madhya
The SC held : Executive action cannot infringe
1967 Pradesh v. Thakur Executive Action Fundamental Rights
fundamental rights.
Bharat Singh

The SC held:

1. Parliament has the power to amend any provision

of the Constitution, including fundamental Article 368 Constitutional Amendments
Sajjan Singh v.
1965 rights, under Article 368.
State of Rajasthan Fundamental Rights

2. Constitutional amendments are

not "law" under Article 13(2) and therefore cannot
be challenged as violating fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court held that a writ of quo warranto

can be issued to challenge the legality of a person's
appointment to a public office, ensuring that the
University of
individual fulfils the necessary qualifications and
1965 Mysore v. Govinda Quo Warranto
legal requirements for the position. This writ serves
Rao
as a check against the unlawful occupation of public
offices, protecting the integrity of public
administration.

Suganmal v. State The Supreme Court held that, Mandamus cannot be

1964 Mandamus Writs
of M.P invoked if an alternative remedy is available.

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 22

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area

The Supreme court held that appealing for votes on

Jagdev Singh
the ground of candidate's language is not a corrupt
1964 Sidhanti v. Pratap Representation of the People Act
practice if it doesn't create enmity between different
Singh Daulta
languages.

The SC held:

1. Caste cannot be the sole or dominant factor for

determining social and educational backwardness,
M.R. Balaji v. State and reservation under Article 15(4) should not
1963
of Mysore exceed 50%.
2.
The classification of backward classes
into "backward" and "more backward" is not
warranted by Article 15(4) and is unconstitutional.

The SC held:
1.
The right to privacy is an essential component of
Kharak Singh v.
the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the
1963 State of Uttar Article 21 Police Surveillance Privacy
Constitution. 2. Domiciliary visits by police at night
Pradesh
as part of surveillance violate Article 21, but other
forms of surveillance like secret watching and
shadowing do not infringe fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of

whether certain practices related to the management
of the Nathdwara Temple were essential religious
Tilkayat Shri
practices. The case arose from the challenge to Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices
Govindlaji Maharaj
1963 the Nathdwara Temple Act, 1959, which aimed to
v. State of Secular Task
regulate the administration of the temple. The Court
Rajasthan
held that the management of the temple's property
was a secular activity and not an essential
religious practice.

State of U.P. v. The SC held that: Right to be produced before a Article 22 Procedural Safeguards
1962
Abdul Samad magistrate within 24 hours. Protection against arbitrary arrest and detention

The Supreme Court held that the Bombay Prevention

of Excommunication Act, 1949, was unconstitutional
as it violated the rights of religious denominations
under and 26 of the Indian Constitution. The Court Article 26 Religious Rights
Saifuddin Saheb v.
1962 ruled that the Act interfered with the religious
State of Bombay Religious Denominations
practices of the Dawoodi Bohra community,
specifically their right to manage their own affairs in
matters of religion, which includes the power to
excommunicate.

The Supreme Court held that a writ of prohibition can

East India be issued to prevent an inferior court or tribunal from
Commercial Co. proceeding with a case that is beyond its jurisdiction
1962 writ of prohibition
Ltd. v. Collector of or lacks jurisdiction altogether. The writ serves as a
Customs supervisory order to ensure that judicial and quasi-
judicial bodies do not exceed their legal authority.

The SC held that: Article 19(1)(a) affords protection to

Sakal Papers v. the freedom of speech and expression, and not
1962 Freedom of Press
Union of India effective or meaningful exercise of the freedom of
speech and expression

The SC put a Limit on the scope of Section 124A,

Kedarnath Singh v. whereby only the individuals using free speech and
1962 Free Speech Public Disorder Sedition
State of Bihar expression to incite violence and disrupt the law can
be penalized.

1961 Durgah Committee The case involved the Dargah Khwaja Saheb Act, Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices
Ajmer v. Syed 1955, which allowed all Hanafi Muslims to participate
Religious Freedom Religious Practices
Hussain Ali in the maintenance of the shrine, contrary to the
exclusive claims of the Soofi Chistia Order. The SC restrictive interpretation
ruled that practices which are purely secular or
arise from superstitious beliefs do not merit
constitutional protection. This decision marked a
shift towards a more restrictive interpretation of

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 23

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area
what constitutes an essential religious practice,
emphasizing that not every practice claiming
religious significance is protected. The Court
differentiated between essential religious practices
and those that might be considered superstitions or
non-essential accretions to the religion itself.

The SC held: Preamble not a part of the

Constitution. [Later changed in further
Judgements]The Preamble is not a source of power
In Re Berubari but a key to understanding the mind of the Constitutional Interpretation Preamble
1960
Union Case Constitution makers. It also clarified that the transfer Territory
of Indian territory to another country requires a
constitutional amendment under Article 368, not just
Parliament's power under Article 3.

The Supreme Court of India addressed the issues of

the constitutional validity of Section 148-B of the Sikh
Gurdwaras Act, they argued that the provision, which
affected the election process of the Sikh Gurdwara
Prabandhak Committee, violated their fundamental
Sardar Sarup Singh right to manage their own religious affairs. Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices
1959
v. State of Punjab The Court applied the Doctrine of Essentiality and Religious Freedom
found that there was no authoritative religious text
supporting the claim that direct elections were
essential to Sikhism and therefore the said
legislation, did not infringe upon the petitioners'
rights under Article 26(b).

The Supreme court held that ‘Proceedings before

Thomas Dana v.
1959 quasi-judicial bodies are not barred under the double Double Jeopardy Quasi Judicial Body
State of Punjab
jeopardy’.

The Supreme Court held that ‘Religious

Sri Venkataramana Article 26 Religious Denominations
denominations have autonomy in managing their
1958 Devaru v. State of
affairs, and state interference is limited to cases of Right to manage own affairs
Mysore
maladministration’.

The Supreme Court held that: extra-territorial laws

can be upheld only when there is a sufficient nexus Doctrine of Nexus
State of Bombay v.
1957 between the object sought to be achieved and the
R.M.D.C Extra Territorial application of laws
state seeking to achieve them. The connection must
be real and not illusionary.

Rameshwar Oraon The Supreme court held that ‘The state government
1955 v. State of Bihar and is obliged to act in accordance with the rules laid Central Supremacy centre state relationship
Ors. down by the central government’.

The SC held:

1. Executive powers are not limited to merely

executing laws passed by the legislature, but extend
to making policies and taking actions for public Executive Power Public Welfare
Ram Jawaya v.
1955 welfare, even without specific legislative backing.
State of Punjab Separation of Powers
2. The court rejected a rigid interpretation of
separation of powers, stating that the Indian
Constitution allows for some overlap in functions
between the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

The SC held: The term "capital gains" falls within the

Navinchandra meaning of "income" for taxation purposes under
Mafatlal v. the Indian Income Tax Act. Section 12B of
1954 Capital Gains Income Taxation
Commissioner of the Income Tax Act, which imposed tax on capital
Income Tax gains, is not ultra vires the Government of India Act,
1935.

1954 Shirur Mutt Case It was held by the SC that: “Article 25 secures to Article 25 Freedom of Religion
every person a freedom not only to entertain such
religious belief, as may be approved of by his
judgment and conscience but also to exhibit his
belief in such outward acts as he thinks proper and
to propagate or disseminate his ideas for the
edification of others.” Further, the right to religious

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 24

 Year Judgement Brief Subject/Topic Area
freedom is not absolute and can be regulated by the
state concerning public order, morality, and health.

The Supreme Court held that the right against self

M.P. Sharma v
1954 incrimination is afforded to both oral and Article 20 Right against self incrimination
Satish Chandra
documentary evidence

The Supreme court held that ‘Executive action

N. Guruswamy v.
1954 cannot contravene a statute or exceed powers Delegated Legislation Executive Authority
State of Mysore
conferred through it’.

The Allahabad High Court held that, Certiorari cannot

Rafiq Khan v. State
1954 be used for appeal; it is for correcting jurisdictional Certiorari Writ jurisdiction
of U.P
errors.

The Supreme court held that “Double jeopardy

Maqbool Hussain v. doesn’t bar civil trial, administrative proceedings or
1953 Civil Trial Double Jeopardy
State of Bombay any other non-criminal proceeding arising out of the
same offence”

The SC court Invalidated reservation based on

State of Madras v 'Communal criteria' and iterated Directive Communal Critera Fundamental Rights
1951 Champakam Principles of State Policy cannot override or
Dorairajan abridge Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III Reservations

of the Constitution.

The SC court held that the Bombay Prohibition Act, is Division of power
State of Bombay v. valid because the pith and substance of the Act fell in
1951 Doctrine of Pith and Substance
F.N. Balsara State List even though it incidentally encroached
upon the Union List. centre state relationship

The SC held that: Parliament has the power to amend

any part of the Constitution, including fundamental
Shankari Prasad v. rights, under Article 368. The word "law" in Article Article 368 Constitutional Amendments
1951
Union of India 13(2) refers only to ordinary legislation and does not Fundamental Rights
include constitutional amendments made under
Article 368.

Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and

expression includes freedom to propagate ideas
Romesh Thappar v which is ensured by freedom of circulation of a
1950 Freedom of Press Freedom of Speech
State of Madras, publication. Moreover, freedom of speech and of
Press was declared to be the foundation of all
democratic organisations.

The SC held that: The protection under Article 21 is

available only against arbitrary executive action and
not from arbitrary legislative
A.K. Gopalan v.
1950 action. Further, ‘personal liberty’ means only liberty Article 21 Due Process Personal Liberty
State of Madras
relating to the person or body of the individual.
(Restrictive View). Procedure established by law is
NOT SAME as Due Process of Law

Judgements for Mains 2025 by AM 25