Constitutional Law
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- Subject: Basic Structure Doctrine
- Constitutional Articles: Article 368 (Power to amend the Constitution), Articles 13, 14, 19, 21
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend core constitutional features (e.g., democracy, secularism, judicial review).
- Key Holding: Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368 but cannot alter its basic structure, ensuring constitutional supremacy.
- Significance: A cornerstone case that safeguards the Constitution’s foundational principles.
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
- Subject: Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
- Constitutional Articles: Articles 31C, 368, 14, 19
- Acts/Sections: 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 (partially struck down)
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine; emphasized harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
- Key Holding: Provisions of the 42nd Amendment giving unchecked amendment powers were struck down as violative of the basic structure. Judicial review was declared a core feature.
- Significance: Strengthened judicial oversight over constitutional amendments.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- Subject: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
- Constitutional Articles: Articles 14, 19, 21 (Golden Triangle)
- Acts/Sections: Passport Act, 1967 (Section 10)
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Expanded Article 21 to include due process and fairness; introduced the interconnectedness of fundamental rights.
- Key Holding: Confiscation of a passport without a fair hearing violated Articles 14, 19, and 21. Laws affecting liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable.
- Significance: Broadened the scope of personal liberty, overturning A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950).
- Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
- Subject: Right to Privacy
- Constitutional Articles: Articles 14, 15, 19, 21
- Acts/Sections: Aadhaar Act, 2016 (upheld with restrictions)
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Declared the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
- Key Holding: Privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty, subject to reasonable restrictions. The Aadhaar scheme was upheld with privacy safeguards.
- Significance: A landmark for digital rights, influencing the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
- Subject: Triple Talaq, Gender Equality
- Constitutional Articles: Articles 14, 15, 21, 25
- Acts/Sections: Muslim Personal Law; led to Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Applied the arbitrariness test under Article 14; emphasized gender justice.
- Key Holding: Instantaneous triple talaq (talaq-e-bidat) was declared unconstitutional for violating equality and dignity.
- Significance: Advanced gender equality, leading to legislation criminalizing triple talaq.
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
- Subject: Internet Access as a Fundamental Right
- Constitutional Articles: Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Recognized internet access as part of freedom of speech and expression.
- Key Holding: Indefinite internet shutdowns in Jammu & Kashmir violated fundamental rights, requiring proportionality and periodic review.
- Significance: Established digital access as a right, shaping internet governance policies.
- In Re: Article 370 (2023)
- Subject: Abrogation of Article 370
- Constitutional Articles: Articles 370, 367, 368
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Upheld federal balance and parliamentary supremacy.
- Key Holding: The abrogation of Article 370 was upheld, ruling that the President’s power to revoke it was constitutionally valid, and Jammu & Kashmir’s special status was temporary.
- Significance: Clarified the constitutional status of Jammu & Kashmir, reinforcing India’s sovereignty.
Criminal Law
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
- Subject: Decriminalization of Homosexuality
- Constitutional Articles: Articles 14, 15, 19, 21
- Acts/Sections: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 377, partially struck down)
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Applied the proportionality test; reinforced privacy and equality.
- Key Holding: Consensual homosexual acts between adults were decriminalized, as Section 377’s application violated fundamental rights.
- Significance: A milestone for LGBTQ+ rights, overturning Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013).
- Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)
- Subject: Decriminalization of Adultery
- Constitutional Articles: Articles 14, 15, 21
- Acts/Sections: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 497, struck down); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 198(2), read down)
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Emphasized gender neutrality and individual autonomy.
- Key Holding: Section 497 was struck down for treating women as property, violating equality and dignity.
- Significance: Removed patriarchal provisions, advancing gender equality.
- Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)
- Subject: Passive Euthanasia, Living Will
- Constitutional Articles: Article 21
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Expanded the right to die with dignity under Article 21.
- Key Holding: Legalized passive euthanasia and upheld “living wills” for terminally ill patients with strict guidelines.
- Significance: Established ethical and legal frameworks for end-of-life decisions, building on Aruna Shanbaug (2011).
- Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
- Subject: Criminal Defamation
- Constitutional Articles: Articles 19(1)(a), 19(2)
- Acts/Sections: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 499, 500, upheld)
- Legal Maxim: Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (An act does not make a person guilty unless there is a guilty mind).
- Key Holding: Criminal defamation was upheld as a reasonable restriction on free speech, emphasizing mens rea and reputation rights.
- Significance: Balanced free speech with the right to reputation.
- Arup Bhuyan v. Union of India (2023)
- Subject: Freedom of Speech, UAPA
- Constitutional Articles: Article 19
- Acts/Sections: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Sections 10, 15)
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Rejected mechanical application of U.S. doctrines like “clear and present danger.”
- Key Holding: Mere membership in a banned organization does not constitute an offense under UAPA unless accompanied by active incitement to violence.
- Significance: Clarified free speech under anti-terror laws, balancing security and liberty.
Civil Law
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
- Subject: Sexual Harassment at Workplace
- Constitutional Articles: Articles 14, 15, 19, 21
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Established the Vishaka Guidelines, a form of judicial legislation.
- Key Holding: Laid down guidelines to prevent workplace sexual harassment, mandating Internal Complaints Committees, leading to the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.
- Significance: A landmark for workplace safety and gender justice.
- Shilaben Ashwinkumar Rana v. Bhavin K. Shah (2019)
- Subject: Medical Negligence
- Acts/Sections: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Sections 2(1)(o), 14)
- Legal Maxim: Res ipsa loquitur (The thing speaks for itself).
- Key Holding: Applied res ipsa loquitur to hold doctors liable for negligence causing disability, shifting the burden of proof.
- Significance: Reinforced consumer rights in medical negligence cases.
Tort Law
- Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (1977)
- Subject: Vicarious Liability
- Constitutional Articles: Article 300 (Liability of the State)
- Legal Maxim: Qui facit per alium facit per se (He who acts through another acts for himself).
- Key Holding: The State was held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees under the maxim.
- Significance: Established the principle of state liability in tort law.
- Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995)
- Subject: Medical Negligence, Consumer Protection
- Acts/Sections: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Sections 2(1)(o), 14)
- Legal Maxim: Res ipsa loquitur (The thing speaks for itself).
- Key Holding: Medical services were brought under the Consumer Protection Act, applying res ipsa loquitur to establish negligence in healthcare.
- Significance: Expanded consumer rights in medical negligence cases, enabling patients to seek redressal through consumer forums.
- Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) (Applied in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1987)
- Subject: Strict Liability
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Adapted the Strict Liability Doctrine to Absolute Liability in India.
- Key Holding: In M.C. Mehta (Oleum Gas Leak Case), the Supreme Court modified Rylands v. Fletcher to impose absolute liability on hazardous industries without exceptions.
- Significance: Strengthened liability for environmental and industrial harm, influencing the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.
Election Law
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
- Subject: Electoral Malpractices, Constitutional Amendments
- Constitutional Articles: Articles 329, 368
- Acts/Sections: Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Section 123); 39th Amendment Act, 1975 (struck down in part)
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine; emphasized free and fair elections.
- Key Holding: The Supreme Court struck down parts of the 39th Amendment that shielded election disputes from judicial review, upholding the integrity of elections.
- Significance: Strengthened democratic principles and judicial oversight in elections.
- Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006)
- Subject: Domicile Requirement for Rajya Sabha Elections
- Constitutional Articles: Articles 80, 84
- Acts/Sections: Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Section 3, amended)
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Upheld open ballot system for Rajya Sabha elections.
- Key Holding: The removal of the domicile requirement for Rajya Sabha candidates and the introduction of open ballots were upheld as constitutional, enhancing electoral transparency.
- Significance: Reformed the election process for the upper house, reducing malpractices.
- Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002)
- Subject: Voter’s Right to Information
- Constitutional Articles: Article 19(1)(a)
- Acts/Sections: Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Section 33)
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Expanded the scope of free speech to include voters’ right to know candidates’ backgrounds.
- Key Holding: Candidates must disclose criminal, financial, and educational details to voters, as this is part of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a).
- Significance: Enhanced electoral transparency and informed voting.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. (2025)
- Subject: Arbitration Law
- Acts/Sections: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Sections 34, 37)
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Limited judicial interference in arbitral awards.
- Key Holding: Courts have restricted powers to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37, emphasizing arbitration’s autonomy.
- Significance: Strengthened India’s arbitration framework, promoting ADR.
- Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (2010)
- Subject: Scope of ADR under CPC
- Acts/Sections: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 89); Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Promoted mediation and other ADR mechanisms.
- Key Holding: The Supreme Court clarified the scope of Section 89, encouraging courts to refer cases to arbitration, mediation, conciliation, or lok adalats for speedy resolution.
- Significance: Strengthened the institutional framework for ADR, reducing judicial backlog.
- Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005)
- Subject: Implementation of ADR
- Acts/Sections: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 89); Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Emphasized mandatory referral to ADR mechanisms.
- Key Holding: The Court upheld Section 89’s constitutional validity, directing courts to actively promote ADR to reduce litigation delays.
- Significance: Institutionalized ADR as a key dispute resolution mechanism in India.
Insurance Law
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal (2004)
- Subject: Insurance Contract Interpretation
- Acts/Sections: Insurance Act, 1938; Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- Legal Maxim: Ut res magis valeat quam pereat (The contract should be interpreted to give it effect rather than destroy it).
- Key Holding: Insurance policies must be interpreted to uphold their validity, resolving ambiguities in favor of the insured.
- Significance: Protected policyholders’ rights by ensuring fair interpretation of insurance contracts.
- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan (1999)
- Subject: Motor Insurance Liability
- Acts/Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Sections 147, 149)
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Clarified insurer’s liability in motor accident cases.
- Key Holding: The insurer is liable to pay compensation in motor accident cases even if the vehicle’s use violates policy terms, subject to recovery from the insured.
- Significance: Strengthened third-party protections under motor insurance laws.
- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Abhijit Ghosh (2023)
- Subject: Insurance Claim Disputes
- Acts/Sections: Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Sections 35, 47)
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Emphasized consumer-friendly resolution of insurance disputes.
- Key Holding: The Supreme Court directed insurers to process claims promptly, holding delays as deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
- Significance: Enhanced policyholder protections and streamlined insurance claim processes.
Labour Law
- Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2005)
- Subject: Corporate Criminal Liability
- Acts/Sections: Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Section 56)
- Legal Maxim: Impotentia excusat legem (Impossibility excuses the law).
- Key Holding: A company cannot be imprisoned but can be fined for offenses, as imprisonment is impossible.
- Significance: Clarified corporate liability in criminal law.
- Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa (1978)
- Subject: Definition of Industry
- Acts/Sections: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Section 2(j))
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Expanded the definition of “industry.”
- Key Holding: Provided a broad interpretation of “industry” to include charitable and governmental organizations.
- Significance: Widened the scope of labour protections.
Administrative Law
- E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
- Subject: Equality and Arbitrariness
- Constitutional Articles: Article 14
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Introduced the arbitrariness test under Article 14.
- Key Holding: Arbitrary state action violates equality, expanding the scope beyond the classification test.
- Significance: A cornerstone for challenging arbitrary executive actions.
- Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)
- Subject: Independence of CBI
- Constitutional Articles: Articles 14, 21
- Acts/Sections: Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (post-case)
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Emphasized institutional independence.
- Key Holding: Issued directions to ensure CBI’s autonomy, leading to the Central Vigilance Commission.
- Significance: Strengthened anti-corruption mechanisms.
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
- Subject: Judicial Review of Tribunals
- Constitutional Articles: Articles 32, 226, 227, 323A, 323B
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Reaffirmed judicial review as part of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
- Key Holding: Administrative tribunals are subject to judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court.
- Significance: Ensured checks on tribunal decisions.
Environmental Law
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) (Oleum Gas Leak Case)
- Subject: Environmental Protection, Absolute Liability
- Constitutional Articles: Article 21
- Acts/Sections: Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (post-case)
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Introduced the Absolute Liability Doctrine.
- Key Holding: Hazardous industries are absolutely liable for harm, without exceptions.
- Significance: Influenced the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.
- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
- Subject: Sustainable Development
- Constitutional Articles: Article 21
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Incorporated the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle.
- Key Holding: Mandated industries to adopt sustainable practices and compensate for environmental damage.
- Significance: Established environmental jurisprudence aligning with global standards.
Taxation Law
- Ravula Subba Rao v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1956)
- Subject: Taxation and Agency
- Acts/Sections: Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
- Legal Maxim: Qui facit per alium facit per se (He who acts through another acts for himself).
- Key Holding: The maxim does not generally apply to the Income-tax Act, as it is a self-contained code.
- Significance: Limited agency principles in taxation.
- Vodafone International Holdings v. Union of India (2012)
- Subject: Taxability of Offshore Transactions
- Acts/Sections: Income Tax Act, 1961 (Section 9)
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Clarified taxing indirect transfers.
- Key Holding: Offshore share transfers lacked a territorial nexus for taxation in India.
- Significance: Influenced amendments to tax indirect transfers, impacting cross-border taxation.
Recent Developments (2023–2025)
- Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India (2023)
- Subject: Reservation and Economic Criteria
- Constitutional Articles: Articles 14, 15, 16
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Reinforced substantive equality through affirmative action.
- Key Holding: Upheld reservations based on economic criteria, addressing social and economic inequalities.
- Significance: Expanded affirmative action beyond caste-based reservations.
- X v. Union of India (2024)
- Subject: Data Protection and Privacy
- Constitutional Articles: Article 21
- Acts/Sections: Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
- Jurisprudence/Doctrine: Strengthened privacy rights in the digital age.
- Key Holding: The Supreme Court clarified the scope of data protection under the 2023 Act, emphasizing consent and transparency in data processing.
- Significance: Reinforced privacy protections in digital transactions.
Legal Maxims in Indian Jurisprudence
- Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1990)
- Subject: Doctrine of Precedents
- Constitutional Articles: Article 141
- Legal Maxim: Stare decisis (To stand by decisions).
- Key Holding: Supreme Court judgments are binding on all courts under Article 141.
- Significance: Reinforced the hierarchical judicial system.
- The Management of TNSTC (Coimbatore) Ltd. v. M. Chandrasekaran (2016)
- Subject: Negligence in Motor Accidents
- Acts/Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
- Legal Maxim: Res ipsa loquitur (The thing speaks for itself).
- Key Holding: Applied res ipsa loquitur to hold the bus operator liable for negligence.
- Significance: Simplified proof of negligence in tort cases.