IASNOVA POLITY
Landmark Supreme Court
§ Prelude
Era I · 1950 – 1967
Era II · 1967 – 1980
Era III · 1978 – 1997
Era IV · 2014 – 2020
Era V · 2020 – 2025
§ The Doctrines
IASNOVA.COM
§ The Long Arc
§ One-Page Revision
IASNOVA.COM
§ Exam Hall
IASNOVA.COM
The Judgment Codex
Landmark Supreme Court
Judgments of India
From Kesavananda Bharati to Electoral Bonds — every constitutional turning point that shaped India. Built for UPSC, BPSC, UPPCS, UGC-NET, MPPSC, RPSC, WBPSC, and every state PCS aspirant.
30+ Cases
75 Years
1 Constitution
यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः
Where there is dharma, there is victory
IASNOVA.COM
Why these judgments rule every exam
Polity questions repeat themselves. Cases are the bedrock of those repetitions — UPSC, BPSC, UPPCS, UGC-NET, every state PCS draws from the same well.
The Constitution of India was a 395-article document in 1950. Today it is 470 articles and twelve schedules — but more importantly, it is several thousand pages of judgments that decided what those articles actually mean. To understand Indian Polity is not to memorise clauses; it is to follow the long argument between Parliament and the Supreme Court that has, judgment by judgment, built modern India.
For UPSC Civil Services, BPSC, UPPCS, MPPSC, RPSC, UKPSC, WBPSC, JPSC, TNPSC, KPSC, APPSC, TSPSC, UGC-NET, SSC CGL, and every state PSC, landmark cases appear directly (Prelims MCQs on “in which case…”) and indirectly (Mains questions on judicial review, basic structure, rights jurisprudence). This codex covers the 30+ judgments that recur most.
IASNOVA.COMThe Constitution is not a mere lawyer’s document; it is a vehicle of life, and its spirit is always the spirit of the age.
The Founding Decade
The early years asked a simple question: can Parliament amend the Constitution at will? The Court said yes — and lived to regret it.
YEAR
1950
№ 1 · LIBERTY V. PROCEDURE
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
AIR 1950 SC 27
IssueWas the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 valid? Could preventive detention be challenged under Articles 14, 19, 21?
HeldA.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under the Act. The Court adopted a narrow, literalist reading of Art. 21 — “procedure established by law” meant any procedure prescribed by statute, regardless of fairness. Arts. 14, 19, 21 were treated as watertight compartments.
Why It MattersThe “watertight compartments” doctrine ruled India for 28 years — until Maneka Gandhi (1978) demolished it. This is the case Maneka Gandhi overruled, and that fact alone is testable in every exam.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
1951
№ 2 · CASTE-BASED RESERVATION
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
AIR 1951 SC 226
IssueCould the Madras government reserve medical/engineering college seats community-wise (Communal Government Order)?
HeldStruck down — violated Art. 29(2) which prohibits denial of admission on grounds of religion, race, caste, language. DPSPs (Art. 46) cannot override Fundamental Rights.
Why It MattersDirectly triggered the 1st Constitutional Amendment, 1951 — insertion of Art. 15(4) to permit reservations for socially and educationally backward classes. The first ever judgment-vs-amendment battle.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
1951
№ 3 · AMENDMENT POWER
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
AIR 1951 SC 458
IssueCould Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Art. 368?
HeldYes — “law” in Art. 13(2) does not include constitutional amendments. The 1st Amendment was upheld.
Why It MattersThe first case on Parliament’s amending power. Stood unchallenged for 16 years until Golak Nath (1967) reversed it.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
1954
№ 4 · ESSENTIAL PRACTICES DOCTRINE
Commissioner, HRE v. Lakshmindra (Shirur Mutt)
AIR 1954 SC 282
IssueCould the State regulate matters of religion under Art. 25/26?
HeldYes — the State may regulate secular aspects of religion (administration, property). But what is “essential” to religion is decided by the religion itself, not the State.
Why It MattersBirthplace of the “essential religious practices” doctrine — invoked in every major religion case since: Triple Talaq, Sabarimala, hijab.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
1960
№ 5 · TERRITORY & CESSION
In re Berubari Union
AIR 1960 SC 845
IssueCould India cede the Berubari Union to East Pakistan via executive agreement, or did it require a constitutional amendment?
HeldCeding territory requires a constitutional amendment under Art. 368. Also held: the Preamble is not part of the Constitution — a position later overruled in Kesavananda Bharati.
Why It MattersThe original ruling on the Preamble’s status. Reversed in 1973; both positions are testable.
IASNOVA.COM
The Basic Structure Battle
Parliament said: “we can amend anything.” The Court said: “not the basic structure.” The fight took three judgments and an Emergency to settle.
YEAR
1967
№ 6 · AMENDMENT POWER, REVERSED
I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab
AIR 1967 SC 1643
IssueCould Parliament amend Fundamental Rights?
HeldBy 6:5 — No. Reversed Shankari Prasad. Fundamental Rights were “transcendental and immutable”. Used the doctrine of prospective overruling for the first time in Indian law.
Why It MattersProvoked Parliament into the 24th Amendment, 1971 — explicitly empowering it to amend any part of the Constitution. The stage was set for Kesavananda Bharati.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
1973
№ 7 · THE MOST IMPORTANT JUDGMENT IN INDIAN HISTORY
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
(1973) 4 SCC 225
IssueAre there any limits to Parliament’s amending power under Art. 368?
HeldBy the narrowest 7:6 majority of a 13-judge bench — the largest bench ever assembled — Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution including Fundamental Rights, but cannot destroy its basic structure. Overruled Golak Nath; upheld the 24th Amendment but limited it.
Basic Features ListedSupremacy of Constitution · republican & democratic form · secular & federal character · separation of powers · sovereignty & integrity · individual freedom & dignity. (Not exhaustive — added to in later cases.)
Why It MattersThe single most consequential judgment in Indian constitutional history. Every subsequent constitutional amendment is tested against this doctrine. If you remember one case, remember this one.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
1975
№ 8 · ELECTION DISPUTE → EMERGENCY
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
AIR 1975 SC 2299
IssueValidity of the 39th Amendment which placed PM’s election beyond judicial review?
HeldThe clause excluding judicial review of the PM’s election was struck down — free and fair elections and judicial review are part of the basic structure. First post-Kesavananda application of the doctrine.
Why It MattersTriggered the imposition of the Emergency (25 June 1975) by Indira Gandhi the very next day after the Allahabad HC verdict — the political-judicial nexus that Indian aspirants must understand.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
1976
№ 9 · THE COURT’S DARKEST HOUR
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla
AIR 1976 SC 1207
IssueDuring Emergency, could a citizen move habeas corpus under Art. 21 if it was suspended?
HeldBy 4:1 majority — No. Even the right to life under Art. 21 stood suspended. Justice H.R. Khanna’s lone dissent — “life and liberty are not gifts of the Constitution” — cost him the Chief Justiceship but became one of the most celebrated dissents in legal history.
Why It MattersFormally overruled in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017). Triggered the 44th Amendment, 1978 — Arts. 20 & 21 can never be suspended even during Emergency.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
1980
№ 10 · BASIC STRUCTURE, REINFORCED
Minerva Mills v. Union of India
AIR 1980 SC 1789
IssueValidity of clauses 4 and 5 of Art. 368 (inserted by the 42nd Amendment) which barred judicial review of constitutional amendments?
HeldStruck down. Limited amending power and judicial review are themselves part of the basic structure. The harmony between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and DPSPs (Part IV) is also basic structure.
Why It MattersSealed the Basic Structure Doctrine permanently. Today, every constitutional amendment is justiciable against this standard.
IASNOVA.COM
The Rights Renaissance
Article 21, once a footnote, became the spine of Indian liberty. The Court read everything into it — privacy, education, livelihood, environment, dignity.
YEAR
1978
№ 11 · THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
(1978) 1 SCC 248
IssueCould the government impound Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving her a hearing under the Passport Act, 1967?
Held“Procedure established by law” in Art. 21 must be just, fair and reasonable — not merely any statutory procedure. Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not watertight compartments but a “golden triangle” — every law must clear all three.
Why It MattersThe doctrinal turning point in Indian constitutional law. Overruled A.K. Gopalan (1950). Made Art. 21 the most expansively-read article in the Constitution.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
1985
№ 12 · RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
(1985) 3 SCC 545
IssueCould BMC evict pavement-dwellers without notice?
HeldRight to life under Art. 21 includes right to livelihood — eviction without due process violates the Constitution. State must follow natural justice.
Why It MattersFirst major case to expand Art. 21 beyond mere existence into conditions for a meaningful life. Foundation for later cases on right to shelter, health, education.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
1985
№ 13 · MAINTENANCE & PERSONAL LAW
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
(1985) 2 SCC 556
IssueWas a divorced Muslim woman entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC beyond iddat period?
HeldYes. Sec. 125 CrPC is secular and applies to all citizens regardless of religion. The Court urged enactment of a Uniform Civil Code.
Why It MattersTriggered the controversial Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 which Parliament passed to dilute the judgment. A defining episode of the personal-law vs. constitutional-law debate.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
1992
№ 14 · MANDAL COMMISSION
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
AIR 1993 SC 477
IssueValidity of 27% OBC reservation under the Mandal Commission report?
Held9-judge bench upheld 27% OBC reservation but laid down: (i) total reservation cannot exceed 50%, (ii) creamy layer must be excluded, (iii) no reservation in promotions (later modified).
Why It MattersThe constitutional ceiling on reservations. Every reservation policy since — including EWS — is tested against this. Note: the 103rd Amendment (2019) inserting 10% EWS was upheld in Janhit Abhiyan (2022).
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
1992
№ 15 · CENTRE–STATE RELATIONS
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
(1994) 3 SCC 1
IssueScope of Presidential power to dismiss state governments under Art. 356?
HeldProclamation under Art. 356 is judicially reviewable. State governments must be tested on the floor of the House, not in the Governor’s drawing room. Secularism and federalism declared basic features.
Why It MattersDrastically reduced misuse of Art. 356. Before Bommai, President’s Rule had been imposed over 100 times; after, it has been imposed sparingly. Essential for Polity GS-II.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
1996
№ 16 · ENVIRONMENT & ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak)
(1987) 1 SCC 395 onwards
IssueLiability of enterprises engaged in hazardous activities after the Shriram Foods oleum gas leak?
HeldIntroduced the doctrine of Absolute Liability — stricter than the English Rylands v. Fletcher “strict liability”. No exceptions. Industry must bear the full social cost of hazardous operations.
Why It MattersFoundation of Indian environmental jurisprudence. M.C. Mehta is the single most influential PIL litigator in Indian history — Ganga, Taj Mahal, vehicle emissions, child labour rescue.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
1997
№ 17 · WORKPLACE HARASSMENT
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
(1997) 6 SCC 241
IssueHow should the law respond to sexual harassment at the workplace when no statute existed? (Bhanwari Devi, a social worker, had been gang-raped in 1992.)
HeldSexual harassment violates Arts. 14, 15, 19 and 21. Until Parliament legislates, the Court laid down the Vishaka Guidelines — binding under Art. 141. Drew on CEDAW via Art. 51(c).
Why It MattersThe Guidelines governed Indian workplaces for 16 years until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Classic example of judicial legislation in a statutory vacuum.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
1997
№ 18 · ARREST GUIDELINES
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
(1997) 1 SCC 416
IssueCustodial deaths and torture by police — what procedural safeguards?
HeldLaid down 11 mandatory guidelines for arrest: identification badges, arrest memo with witness, informing relative within 8–12 hours, medical examination every 48 hours, etc. Violation = contempt + departmental action.
Why It MattersThe procedural backbone of Art. 22 protections. Cited in every custodial violence case since. Later incorporated into Sec. 41B CrPC.
IASNOVA.COM
The Liberty Decade
A generation of judgments — privacy, decriminalisation, dignity — that re-anchored the Constitution to individual freedom.
YEAR
2014
№ 19 · TRANSGENDER RIGHTS
NALSA v. Union of India
(2014) 5 SCC 438
IssueConstitutional status of transgender persons?
HeldRecognised transgender as the “third gender”. Right to self-identification of gender is part of Arts. 14, 15, 16, 19, 21. State must provide reservation as a socially and educationally backward class.
Why It MattersFoundation of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The first major LGBTQ+ rights judgment of the Indian Supreme Court.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
2015
№ 20 · FREE SPEECH ONLINE
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
(2015) 5 SCC 1
IssueConstitutionality of Sec. 66A of the IT Act, 2000?
HeldStruck down Sec. 66A — vague, overbroad, and a chilling effect on free speech under Art. 19(1)(a). “Annoying” or “grossly offensive” cannot be the basis of criminal liability.
Why It MattersThe first definitive judgment on online speech. Despite the ruling, arrests under 66A continued for years — the SC has repeatedly admonished states.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
2017
№ 21 · PRIVACY AS FUNDAMENTAL
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
(2017) 10 SCC 1
IssueIs the right to privacy a fundamental right? (Initially raised in Aadhaar challenge.)
HeldBy a 9-judge bench unanimously — Yes. Privacy is intrinsic to Art. 21 (life and liberty), Art. 19 (freedoms), and the broader fundamental rights chapter. Overruled ADM Jabalpur (1976) formally.
Why It MattersAnchored the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Foundation for later judgments on same-sex relations, decriminalisation of adultery, passive euthanasia.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
2017
№ 22 · TRIPLE TALAQ
Shayara Bano v. Union of India
(2017) 9 SCC 1
IssueConstitutionality of instantaneous triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat)?
HeldBy 3:2 majority — Struck down. Triple talaq is not an “essential practice” of Islam and violates Arts. 14, 15, 21. Manifestly arbitrary.
Why It MattersLed to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, criminalising the practice. A direct application of the essential-practices doctrine from Shirur Mutt.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
2018
№ 23 · SECTION 377 READ DOWN
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
(2018) 10 SCC 1
IssueConstitutionality of Sec. 377 IPC criminalising consensual same-sex relations?
HeldRead down. Consensual same-sex relations between adults decriminalised. “Sex” in Art. 15 includes sexual orientation. Overruled Suresh Kumar Koushal (2013).
Why It MattersLandmark on LGBTQ+ rights and constitutional morality. Built on the privacy doctrine from Puttaswamy. Note: marriage equality was not granted — that came in Supriyo Chakraborty (2023).
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
2018
№ 24 · WOMEN’S ENTRY TO SABARIMALA
Indian Young Lawyers Assn. v. State of Kerala
(2019) 11 SCC 1
IssueCould the Sabarimala temple bar women aged 10–50 from entry?
HeldBy 4:1 majority — Struck down. The exclusion violates Arts. 14, 15, 17 (untouchability extended to menstrual exclusion by J. Chandrachud), 21, 25. Devotees of Lord Ayyappa are not a separate “religious denomination”.
Why It MattersReview petition pending before a larger bench. Important for understanding the contested boundaries of religious freedom vs. equality.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
2018
№ 25 · DEATH WITH DIGNITY
Common Cause v. Union of India
(2018) 5 SCC 1
IssueIs passive euthanasia and “living wills” permissible?
HeldYes. The right to die with dignity is part of Art. 21. Laid down detailed safeguards for living wills and withdrawal of life-support.
Why It MattersCompleted the arc of Art. 21 — from livelihood (Olga Tellis) to dignified death. Active euthanasia remains illegal.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
2020
№ 26 · INTERNET AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India
(2020) 3 SCC 637
IssueIndefinite internet shutdown in Jammu & Kashmir after Art. 370 abrogation?
HeldAccess to internet is protected under Art. 19(1)(a) (speech) and 19(1)(g) (trade). Suspensions must be temporary, proportionate, and subject to judicial review. Indefinite suspension is unconstitutional.
Why It MattersFirst major ruling on digital rights in the constitutional fabric. Cited globally as a model on internet shutdowns.
IASNOVA.COM
The Recent Verdicts
The decisions still shaping news headlines as you read this. Where the Court draws fresh lines on transparency, federalism, marriage, and the digital age.
YEAR
2022
№ 27 · EWS RESERVATION
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
(2023) 5 SCC 1
IssueConstitutionality of the 103rd Amendment (2019) introducing 10% EWS reservation for economically weaker sections?
HeldBy 3:2 majority — Upheld. Economic criteria alone can be a basis for reservation. The 50% cap from Indra Sawhney does not apply to EWS (which is over and above existing SC/ST/OBC reservations).
Why It MattersMarks a structural shift — reservation can now address economic, not just social, disadvantage. Dissents (CJI Lalit, J. Bhat) called it a violation of the basic structure of equality.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
2023
№ 28 · MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1348
IssueWhether same-sex couples have a right to legal recognition of marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954?
HeldUnanimously — There is no fundamental right to marry. The bench (4:1 on related questions) declined to recognise same-sex marriage, holding it is for Parliament to legislate. The Court directed the government to form a committee to address civil rights of same-sex couples.
Why It MattersA rare instance of the SC declining to expand rights, deferring to legislative competence. Marks the limit of the privacy-based liberty doctrine from Puttaswamy and Navtej Johar.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
2023
№ 29 · ARTICLE 370 ABROGATION
In re Article 370 of the Constitution
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1750
IssueConstitutionality of the abrogation of Art. 370 (5 August 2019) and the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019?
HeldUnanimously upheld. Art. 370 was always a temporary provision. The President’s power to abrogate it was constitutionally valid. Directed restoration of statehood and elections in J&K by 30 September 2024.
Why It MattersOne of the most-anticipated constitutional verdicts of the decade. Settled a 70-year-old debate on J&K’s special status.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
2024
№ 30 · ELECTORAL BONDS STRUCK DOWN
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India
(2024) 5 SCC 1
IssueConstitutionality of the Electoral Bonds Scheme, 2018 — which allowed anonymous corporate donations to political parties?
HeldUnanimously struck down on 15 February 2024. The scheme violates the voter’s right to information under Art. 19(1)(a). Anonymous funding cannot be justified by donor privacy when public interest in electoral transparency is at stake. SBI ordered to disclose all bond purchases to the ECI.
Why It MattersThe biggest electoral reform judgment in two decades. Reasserted the primacy of transparency in democracy.
IASNOVA.COM
YEAR
2024
№ 31 · CITIZENSHIP ACT, SEC. 6A
In re Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2880
IssueConstitutionality of Sec. 6A — which set 25 March 1971 as the cut-off date for citizenship of migrants from Bangladesh under the Assam Accord (1985)?
HeldBy 4:1 majority — Upheld. Sec. 6A is constitutional. The cut-off balances Assam’s demographic concerns with humanitarian obligations.
Why It MattersCentral to debates on the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019.
IASNOVA.COM
❖ ❖ ❖
Doctrines Born in Court
A handful of phrases now run through every Polity exam. Each was invented in a single judgment — and shaped Indian law forever after.
| Doctrine | Case & Year | What It Says |
|---|---|---|
| Basic Structure | Kesavananda Bharati · 1973 | Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its basic structure (federalism, secularism, judicial review, free elections, rule of law, Fundamental Rights). |
| Golden Triangle | Maneka Gandhi · 1978 | Arts. 14, 19, 21 read together — every law restricting liberty must satisfy all three. |
| Essential Religious Practices | Shirur Mutt · 1954 | Only what is “essential” to a religion is protected under Arts. 25/26. State can regulate the rest. |
| Procedure Just, Fair, Reasonable | Maneka Gandhi · 1978 | “Procedure established by law” in Art. 21 cannot be arbitrary — must satisfy fairness. |
| Absolute Liability | M.C. Mehta (Oleum Gas) · 1986 | Stricter than Rylands v. Fletcher. Enterprises in hazardous activities are absolutely liable for harm — no exceptions. |
| Continuing Mandamus | Vineet Narain · 1998; T.N. Godavarman | The Court keeps a writ alive over years, supervising executive compliance — used for CBI autonomy, forest protection. |
| Constitutional Morality | Navtej Singh Johar · 2018 | Popular morality cannot override constitutional values. Coined by Ambedkar; revived by CJI Dipak Misra. |
| Doctrine of Severability | A.K. Gopalan · 1950 | If part of a law is unconstitutional, only that part is struck down — the rest stands. |
| Prospective Overruling | Golak Nath · 1967 | A new judicial doctrine applies only to future cases, not past ones — to protect settled expectations. |
| Doctrine of Eclipse | Bhikaji Narain · 1955 | Pre-Constitution laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not void — they remain dormant (“eclipsed”); revived if FRs are amended. |
The 75-Year Timeline
Every case in this codex, on one page — for revision the night before the exam.
The Judgments Map
1950
A.K. Gopalan — Art. 21 read narrowly; watertight compartments.
1951
Champakam Dorairajan + Shankari Prasad — DPSPs subordinate to FRs; Parliament may amend FRs.
1954
Shirur Mutt — essential religious practices doctrine.
1955
Bhikaji Narain — doctrine of eclipse.
1960
Berubari Union — preamble not part of Constitution (later overruled).
1967
Golak Nath — Parliament cannot amend FRs (later overruled).
1973
Kesavananda Bharati — basic structure doctrine. The defining judgment.
1975
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain — free and fair elections part of basic structure; Emergency declared next day.
1976
ADM Jabalpur — court’s darkest hour; Justice Khanna’s lone dissent.
1978
Maneka Gandhi — golden triangle; Art. 21 expanded forever.
1980
Minerva Mills — basic structure permanently sealed.
1985
Olga Tellis + Shah Bano — right to livelihood; secular maintenance law.
1986
M.C. Mehta (Oleum Gas) — absolute liability doctrine.
1992
Indra Sawhney + Bommai — 50% reservation cap; federalism & secularism as basic features.
1997
Vishaka + D.K. Basu — sexual harassment guidelines; 11 arrest safeguards.
2014
NALSA — transgender as third gender.
2015
Shreya Singhal — Sec. 66A IT Act struck down.
2017
Puttaswamy + Shayara Bano — privacy a fundamental right; triple talaq struck down.
2018
Navtej Singh Johar + Sabarimala + Common Cause — Sec. 377 read down; women’s temple entry; passive euthanasia.
2020
Anuradha Bhasin — internet access protected under Art. 19.
2022
Janhit Abhiyan — 10% EWS reservation upheld.
2023
Supriyo Chakraborty + Art. 370 Verdict — marriage equality declined; abrogation upheld.
2024
ADR (Electoral Bonds) + Sec. 6A Citizenship — anonymous funding struck down; Assam cut-off upheld.
The Quick-Glance Table
Every judgment, every principle, every consequence — at a glance.
| Year | Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| 1950 | A.K. Gopalan v. Madras | Narrow Art. 21; watertight compartments |
| 1951 | Champakam Dorairajan | FRs override DPSPs; triggered 1st Amendment |
| 1951 | Shankari Prasad | Parliament can amend FRs |
| 1954 | Shirur Mutt | Essential religious practices doctrine |
| 1960 | Berubari Union | Preamble not part of Constitution (later overruled) |
| 1967 | Golak Nath | FRs unamendable (overruled by Kesavananda) |
| 1973 | Kesavananda Bharati | Basic Structure Doctrine |
| 1975 | Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain | Free & fair elections = basic structure |
| 1976 | ADM Jabalpur | Art. 21 suspendable in Emergency (overruled, 2017) |
| 1978 | Maneka Gandhi | Golden Triangle; Art. 21 expanded |
| 1980 | Minerva Mills | Limited amending power = basic structure |
| 1985 | Olga Tellis | Right to livelihood = part of Art. 21 |
| 1985 | Shah Bano | Sec. 125 CrPC applies to Muslim women |
| 1986 | M.C. Mehta (Oleum Gas) | Absolute liability doctrine |
| 1992 | Indra Sawhney | 50% reservation cap; creamy layer |
| 1992 | S.R. Bommai | Federalism, secularism = basic structure |
| 1997 | Vishaka | Sexual harassment guidelines |
| 1997 | D.K. Basu | 11 mandatory arrest guidelines |
| 2014 | NALSA | Transgender as third gender |
| 2015 | Shreya Singhal | Sec. 66A IT Act struck down |
| 2017 | K.S. Puttaswamy | Right to privacy = fundamental right |
| 2017 | Shayara Bano | Triple talaq unconstitutional |
| 2018 | Navtej Singh Johar | Sec. 377 read down |
| 2018 | Sabarimala (IYLA) | Women aged 10–50 may enter |
| 2018 | Common Cause | Passive euthanasia; living wills |
| 2020 | Anuradha Bhasin | Internet access under Art. 19 |
| 2022 | Janhit Abhiyan | 10% EWS reservation upheld |
| 2023 | Supriyo Chakraborty | No fundamental right to same-sex marriage |
| 2023 | Art. 370 Verdict | Abrogation upheld |
| 2024 | ADR (Electoral Bonds) | Anonymous donations unconstitutional |
| 2024 | Sec. 6A Citizenship Act | 1971 Assam cut-off upheld |
Most-Asked PYQ-style Questions
A digest of question patterns recurring across UPSC, BPSC, UPPCS, UGC-NET, MPPSC, RPSC, and other state PCS exams.
Which judgment laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine?
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), decided by a 13-judge bench (largest ever) with a 7:6 majority. Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its “basic structure”.
What is the “Golden Triangle” of the Constitution?
Articles 14, 19 and 21, read together. Crystallised in Maneka Gandhi v. UoI (1978). Every law restricting personal liberty must satisfy all three — not any one alone.
Which judgment formally overruled ADM Jabalpur (1976)?
K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI (2017). The 9-judge bench held that life and personal liberty under Art. 21 are inalienable — they exist independent of the Constitution and cannot be suspended.
Which case introduced the doctrine of Absolute Liability?
M.C. Mehta v. UoI (Oleum Gas Leak case), 1986. Stricter than the English Rylands v. Fletcher “strict liability” — there are no exceptions.
When did the Supreme Court strike down the Electoral Bonds Scheme?
15 February 2024, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. UoI. The 5-judge bench unanimously held the scheme violates the voter’s right to information under Art. 19(1)(a).
Did the Supreme Court legalise same-sex marriage in India?
No. In Supriyo Chakraborty v. UoI (2023), the SC unanimously held there is no fundamental right to marry. The Court directed the government to constitute a committee on civil rights of same-sex couples, but recognition of marriage was left to Parliament.
Which judgment established the 50% reservation cap?
Indra Sawhney v. UoI (1992), the Mandal Commission case. A 9-judge bench upheld 27% OBC reservation but capped total reservations at 50% and mandated exclusion of the creamy layer. The EWS quota (10%) is over and above this cap, upheld in Janhit Abhiyan (2022).
What was the basis of striking down Article 370?
The Supreme Court in In re Article 370 (2023) unanimously held that Art. 370 was always a temporary provision, and the Presidential Orders of 5 August 2019 abrogating it were constitutionally valid. The Court directed restoration of statehood and elections by 30 September 2024.
Which case is called “the heart and soul” of the Constitution?
Article 32 itself — Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s words in the Constituent Assembly. L. Chandra Kumar v. UoI (1997) reaffirmed that judicial review under Art. 32 is part of the basic structure.
