Republic at 70 | From Kesavananda Bharti to Babri Masjid, here are the top Supreme Court verdicts
The history of the Supreme Court of India is directly and inextricably linked to that of the Constitution. The latter came into effect on January 26, 1950. The apex court, which derives its independence and remit from the Constitution, came into being two days later, on January 28, 1950. It completes its seventieth year of existence today.
In these 70 years, the court has delivered several important judgments. Here’s a subjective listing of a few:
AK Gopalan v State of Madras (May 19, 1950) : This was the first case which gave the court the opportunity to explore the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court ruled against communist leader Gopalan, who was detained in a Madras prison, holding that Article 21 contemplates only procedural fairness. Hence, life and liberty can be taken away by a law which has been passed by Parliament and the court cannot look into whether the law itself is fair or not.
Champakam Dorairajan v State of Madras (April 9, 1951) : The court held that a government order prescribing reservation in engineering and medical colleges in the state of madras was violative of Article 29 of the Constitution. Article 29 states that no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the state or receiving aid out of state funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. The fall out of this judgment was the first amendment to the Constitution. By way of this amendment, a new clause (Clause 4) was inserted in Article 15. This change protected laws made by government providing reservations to SC and ST communities in educational institutions.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (February 27, 1967) : The court held that a constitutional amendment made by Parliament in exercise of its powers under Article 368 is a “law” within the definition of Article 13(2) of the Constitution. This effectively meant that parliament cannot amend the Constitution to take away or abridge Part III of the Constitution which lays down fundamental rights.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (April 24, 1973): This is arguably the most famous judgment delivered by the Supreme Court . A bench of the Supreme Court comprising all the 13 sitting judges by a wafer thin majority of 7-6 overruled its judgment in Golaknath and held that a constitutional amendment is not “law” within the meaning of Article 13(2). This meant that the parliament could amend any part of the Constitution including Part III which lays down fundamental rights.However, this power came with the rider that it should not impinge upon the “Basic Structure of the Constitution”. What would constitute Basic Structure was left open-ended for the court to interpret.
ADM Jabalpur v. SS Shukla (April 28, 1976): This is widely considered as black day in the history of Indian democracy as a Constitution Bench of the highest court of the land, by a majority of 4:1, upheld the detention of citizens and political leaders belonging to opposition parties. The court was considering a presidential proclamation which was issued during emergency. The presidential order said that during the emergency, the right of a person to move any court for enforcement of the rights conferred by article 14, article 21 and article 22 of the Constitution shall remain suspended. The court upheld the same and held that while a proclamation of emergency is in operation, the right to move High Courts under Article 226 for a writ of Habeas Corpus challenging illegal detention by state will stand suspended.Justice HR Khanna dissented holding that Article 21 cannot be the sole repository of all rights. He ruled that sanctity of life and liberty existed even before the Constitution. Justice HR Khanna’s dissenting judgment in which he appealed to “the brooding spirit of law” and “the intelligence of the future” earned him legendary status but he lost the post of CJI to justice MH Beg who superseded him.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (January 25, 1978) : The Supreme Court overruled its 1950 decision in AK Gopalan and expanded the scope of Article 21 by holding that the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 must be “fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary”.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (July 31, 1980) : In this key judgment delivered after the emergency, the court struck down many constitutional amendments made by the Indira Gandhi government during emergency. It employed the “basic structure doctrine” to hold that Parliament’s power to make Constitutional amendments is limited and it cannot be used to weaken fundamental rights. The Court also held that fundamental rights under part III of the Constitution override “Directive Principles of State Policy”.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (November 16, 1992): This was one of the most important judgments on reservation. The court upheld the Mandal commission’s recommendations to provide reservation for other backward classes in government jobs but excluded the so-called “creamy layer” from availing such benefits. The court also ruled that total reservation for SC/STs, OBCs and others should not exceed 50%. Further, reservation for economically poor among forward castes was struck down by the court.
Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association & Anr. v. Union of India (October 6, 1993) : The current system of appointment of judges to the high court and Supreme Court through the collegium system was devised in this case popularly known as the Second Judges case. The top court ruled that the opinion of the Chief Justice of India will have primacy over the opinion of the executive with regard to the appointment of judges.
IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (January 11, 2007): In this judgment, the Court expanded the scope of basic structure doctrine, holding that any law inserted in the Ninth Schedule on or after April 24, 1973 (date on which Kesavananda Bharati judgment was pronounced) can be subject to judicial review and will be struck down if it violates the basic structure doctrine.
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (April 15, 2014) : In a landmark judgment, the court held that transgender persons should be recognised as the third gender. They have all constitutional and legal rights as any other person in the country.
Justice KS Puttaswamy v Union of India (August 24, 2017) : A nine-judge bench ruled that right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (November 9, 2019): A five-judge bench of the court brought an end to the contentious Ayodhya dispute by awarding the 2.77-acre disputed land to Ram Lalla Virajman, the child deity while granting five acres of land to Muslims at an alternative site for construction of a new mosque. The court also asked the government to set up a trust to oversee construction of the temple and manage the disputed site.
Enter your email to get our daily newsletter in your inbox
- The state board exams are usually held in March, but had been postponed to April this year, due to the pandemic.
- In October of last year, India and South Africa proposed a TRIPS waiver for all WTO members to allow greater access to affordable Covid-19 healthcare facilities
- The first sign that India-Pakistan back-channel conversations were on track came this month when Pak army chief Gen Bajwa said it was time to extend a hand of peace in all directions
- India has vaccinated more than 10.5 million health and front-line workers since beginning its immunisation campaign on Jan. 16. But only 1.2 million, or about 11%, of them have taken COVAXIN, the locally developed vaccine from Bharat Biotech.
- As per the new guidelines, social media platforms are required to disclose the first originator of mischievous tweet or message, the information and technology minister announced.
- The games in Gulmarg will see participation of 1200 athletes from 27 states and Union Territories (UTs) besides the armed forces personnel.
- Dantewada SP rubbished the allegations saying the deceased surrendered in front of the media and her interrogation report and statements of other Maoists showed clearly that she was working as a CNM member.