CASE-1: C Golak Nath V. State of Punjab - 1967
This case drawn out the "doctrine of prospective over ruling" under which absolute restriction of powers of parliament in respect of amendment of fundamental rights has been brought in.
>> Until this case "Right to property" was a fundamental right under Constitution of India
>> Golak Nath and his family had more than 500 acres of land in Punjab.
>> Under the new State Govt. Act introduced at that time known as "Punjab Securities and Tenures Act", it was told that Golak Nath and his family cannot hold more than 30 acres of Land,
>> Golak Nath filed writ petition challenging the validity of legislation that his fundamental right of "right to property" was being violated
JUDGEMENT:
>> The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights of Individuals mentioned in the Constitution
CASE -2: Keshavanand Bharti V. State of Kerala 1973
Doctrine of "Basic Structure" is introduced
The Keshavananda Bharti Case depicts the tussle between Article 13(2) and 368.
Indira Gandhi Govt. brought in 24th Amendment 1971: Parliament can Amend any part of the constitution as per Art 368
Justice Hans Raj Khanna
[Indian judge, jurist and advocate who propounded the basic structure doctrine in 1973 and upheld civil liberties during the time of Emergency in India in a lone dissenting judgement in 1976.]
Basic Structure includes:
> Supremacy of the Constitution
> Republican and democratic form of government
> Secular Character of the Constitution
> Separation of powers between the legislature, executive and the judiciary
> Federal Character of the Constitution
> The Mandate to build a welfare state
> Unity and the Integrity of the nation
> Sovereignty of India
> Democratic Character of the polity
> Unity of the Country
> Essential features of the individual freedom secured to the citizens
> Mandate to build a welfare state
JUDGEMENT:
> Overruled previous decision that suggested that the right to property could not be restricted
> Agreed the power of Parliament to make changes in the constitution but with a restriction that parliament cannot change "Basic Structure" of our Constitution.
CASE 3: Indira Gandhi V. Raj Narain - 1975
Verdict under this case it led to the imposition of emergency
Allahabad Court Cancelled the election result of Indhira Gandhi which has been alleged as conducted by using government system in wrong way
Primary issue was the validity of clause 4 of the 39th Amendment Act ( enacted on 10 August 1975, placed the election of the President, the Vice President, the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond the scrutiny of the Indian courts. It was passed during the Emergency of 1975–1977)
JUDGEMENT:
Judicial review is under Basic Structure and scrutiny of election can be done
CASE 4: Minerva Mills V. Union of India - 1980
Strengthened "Basic Structure Concept"
Abolished Section 4 & 55 passed under 42nd Amendment Act declared as null and void
Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment has robbed the fundamental rights of their supremacy and made them subordinate to the directive principles of State policy as if there were a permanent emergency in operation.
Section 55 prevented any constitutional amendment from being "called in question in any Court on any ground". It also declared that there would be no limitation whatever on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution
CASE 5: Mohd Ahmed Khan V. Shah Bano Begum - 1985
> Sha Bano won the right to get alimony from her husband
> The petitioner challenged the Muslim personal Law, The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Shah Bano and granted her alimony. Most favoured it as a secular judgement but it as a secular judgement but it also invoked a strong reaction from the Muslim community, which felt that the judgement was an enforcement on muslim sharia law. and Rajiv Gandhi Govt. went into pressure and introduced Ordinance against this verdict insisting the Muslim Personal Law Board can give alimony if the husband don't give alimony.
CASE 6: MC Mehta V. Union of India 1986
PIL filed by MC Mehta in 1986 enlarged the scope and ambit of Article 21 and Article 32 to include the right to healthy and pollution-free environment.
Sreeram Fertilisers leak case in Delhi
CASE 7: Indira Sawhney V. UOI - 1992
on Reservation as per Caste
The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court held in this matter that caste could be a factor for identifying backward classes
CASE 8: SR Bommai V. Union of India - 1994
Power of President's Rule curtailed / State Central Relationship
post this case Supreme court clearly detailed the limitations within which Article 356 has to function
CASE 9: Vishaka V. State of Rajasthan - 1997
Led foundation for a female workforce
Vishakha and other women groups filed a PIL against State of Rajasthan and Union of India to enforce fundamental rights for working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. This resulted in the introduction of " Vishakha Guidelines". The judgement of August 1997 also provided basic definition of sexual harassment at the workplace and provided guidelines to deal with it.