The Supreme Court of India plays important role in upholding the Constitution and protecting fundamental rights. Over the years, it has delivered numerous landmark judgments that have shaped Indian law and society.
Fundamental Rights and Basic Structure
Fundamental rights are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India. They protect individual liberties against state action. The basic structure doctrine emerged from various landmark cases.
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights cannot be amended by Parliament under Article 368. This overturned previous judgments that allowed Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution.
Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
This judgment established the basic structure doctrine. A 13-judge bench ruled that while the Constitution can be amended, its basic features must remain intact. This included the protection of fundamental rights.
Judicial Review as a Basic Feature
Judicial review ensures that laws passed by Parliament are constitutional. Several cases reaffirmed its importance.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
The Court struck down amendments that sought to limit judicial review over elections. It held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution.
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
The Supreme Court ruled that laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule cannot be exempt from judicial review. This reinforced the idea that all laws must conform to fundamental rights.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
The Court invalidated provisions of the 42nd Amendment that sought to restrict judicial review. It asserted that the power of amendment is not absolute and is limited by the basic structure.
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case (2015)
The Supreme Court declared the NJAC unconstitutional, asserting that it violated the independence of the judiciary. This case brought into light the importance of maintaining judicial independence in appointments.
The Collegium System
The collegium system for judicial appointments was established through a series of judgments.
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
This case clarified that the term ‘consultation’ in judicial appointments did not mean ‘concurrence’. The President has the final authority in appointments.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993)
The Court held that ‘consultation’ means ‘concurrence’. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) must consult senior judges in the appointment process.
Third Judges Case (1998)
This case affirmed that the CJI must consult four senior-most judges for appointments, ensuring a more democratic process.
Equality and Non-Discrimination
The Supreme Court has played a vital role in interpreting equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16.
State of West Bengal v. Anwar All Sarkar (1952)
The Court ruled that classification for special trials must be rational and not arbitrary, establishing a test for equality.
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1973)
This case introduced the doctrine of arbitrariness, stating that equality is opposed to arbitrary state action.
Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018)
The Court condemned lynching and mob violence, stating it undermines the rule of law. It issued guidelines for prevention and accountability.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2018)
The Court declared the practice of triple talaq unconstitutional, applying the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness.
Intersectionality in Law
The Court has increasingly recognised the intersectionality of discrimination.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
This landmark judgment decriminalised consensual same-sex relationships, affirming the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community.
NALSA v. Union of India (2014)
The Court recognised transgender persons as a third gender, affirming their right to self-identification and protection against discrimination.
Gender-Based Violence and Discrimination
The Court has addressed gender-based violence through various judgments.
Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021)
The Court recognised intersectional gender-based violence, affirming the unique vulnerabilities of women with disabilities.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018)
The Court struck down the ban on women’s entry to the Sabarimala Temple, stating it violated constitutional rights.
Women’s Rights in the Armed Forces
The Supreme Court has made strides in recognising women’s rights in the military.
Babita Puniya v. Union of India (2020)
The Court ruled that women officers should be eligible for permanent commission in the army, affirming equality in military service.
Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission (2021)
This case recognised the right to reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities in public service.
Child Marriage and Rape Laws
The Court has addressed issues surrounding child marriage and marital rape.
Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017)
The Court ruled that sexual intercourse with a minor wife constitutes rape, reinforcing child protection laws.
Abortion Rights
The Court has expanded the interpretation of abortion rights.
Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department (2020)
The Court recognised the right to safe and legal abortion, including in cases of marital rape.
Reservation and Affirmative Action
The Supreme Court has addressed the complexities of reservation policies in India.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1993)
The Court upheld 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes in government jobs, recognising caste as a factor in backwardness.
Reservation in Promotions
The Court has examined the legality of reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
General Management, Southern Railway v. Rangachari (1962)
The Court allowed reservations in promotions, interpreting Article 16 to include promotions.
Consequential Seniority
In UOI v. Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995), the Court upheld the principle of consequential seniority in promotions for reserved categories.
Economic Weaker Sections Reservation
In 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, allowing 10% reservation for economically weaker sections.
