Important judgements of Supreme court.Upsc IAS exam 2023. Acts,Articles

The Constitution of India, enacted in 1950, has been the cornerstone of India’s

democracy. After its enactment it has undergone several amendments.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and, by its creative

and innovative interpretation, has been the protector of our constitutional rights and

fundamental freedom.

These judgements are to be appreciated not only as precedents, but also as having

laid down the law on issues of paramount importance—law that is binding on all

courts and authorities in the country.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Main theme: Propagating the ‘basic structure’ doctrine as a safeguard against the

usurpation of the Constitution.

It was unique for the reason that it brought a shift in the balance of democratic

power. Earlier judgements had taken a stand that Parliament could amend even the

fundamental rights through a proper legislative process.

But the present case held that Parliament can not amend or alter the

fundamental structure a ‘Basic Structure’ of the constitution.

Besides, Kesavananda Case was significant in that the Supreme Court ascribed to

itself the function of preserving the integrity of the Indian Constitution.

The ‘basic structure’ doctrine formulated by the court represented the pinnacle

of judicial creativity and set a benchmark for other constitutional courts around the

world.

The doctrine ruled that even a constitutional amendment could be invalidated if it

impaired the essential features—the basic structure—of the Constitution.

Evolution of the Basic structure doctrine

Since the adoption of Indian Constitution, debates have started regarding the power

of the Parliament to amend key provisions of the Constitution. 

In the early years of Independence, the Supreme Court conceded absolute power to

Parliament in amending the Constitution, as was seen in the verdicts in Shankari

Prasad case (1951) and Sajjan Singh case (1965).

This means Parliament had the power to amend any part of the constitution

including Fundamental rights.

However, in the Golaknath case (1967), the Supreme Court held that Parliament

could not amend Fundamental Rights, and this power would be only with a

Constituent Assembly.

The Court held that an amendment under Article 368 is "law" within the

meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment "takes

away or abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void.

To get over the judgments of the Supreme Court in the Golaknath case (1967), RC

Cooper case (1970), and Madhavrao Scindia case (1970), the then government

headed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had enacted major amendments to the

Constitution (the 24 , 25 , 26 and 29 ).

All the four amendments brought by the government were challenged in the

Kesavananda Bharati case.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Main theme: Expanding the meaning of the ‘right to life’ under the Constitution of

India

The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 reads: ‘No person shall be

deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established

by law”.

In other words, courts were not allowed to question any law—no matter how

arbitrary or oppressive—as violating the right to life or personal liberty if the law had

been suitably passed and enacted.

However, by vesting in itself the power of substantive review under Article 21,

the court transformed itself from being merely a supervisor, to being a watchdog of

the Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s judgement in the Maneka Gandhi case effectively meant that

‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 would have the same effect as

the expression ‘due process of law’.

In a subsequent decision, the Supreme Court stated that Article 21 would read

as: ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except

according to fair, just and reasonable procedure established by valid

law.

Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)

Main theme: Questioning the sanctity of personal religious laws and bringing the

debate on a Uniform Civil Code to the forefront of the national discourse.

In April 1985, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement on the maintenance a

divorced Muslim woman would be entitled to receive from her former husband in the

case of Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (Shah Bano).

It is seen as one of the milestones in Muslim women’s fight for rights in India and the

battle against the set Muslim personal law. It laid the ground for thousands of women

to make legitimate claims which they were not allowed before.

While the Supreme Court upheld the right to alimony in the case, the judgment set off

a political battle as well as a controversy about the extent to which courts can

interfere in Muslim personal law.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Main theme: Delivering the decision relating to the constitutionality of reservations

under the Constitution of India.

In the Indra Sawhney judgment (1992), the Court upheld the government’s

move and proclaimed that the advanced sections among the OBCs (i.e, the creamy

layer) must be excluded from the list of beneficiaries of reservation. It also held that

the concept of creamy layer must be excluded for SCs & STs.

The Indra Sawhney verdict also held there would be reservation only in initial

appointments and not promotions.

But the government through this amendment introduced Article 16(4A) to

the Constitution, empowering the state to make provisions for reservation in

matters of promotion to SC/ST employees if the state feels they are not

adequately represented.

The Supreme Court in the judgement also capped the reservation quota at 50%.

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

Main theme: Innovating jurisprudence to prevent sexual harassment at the

workplace.

In the context of sexual harassment of women at workplace, judicial activism reached

its pinnacle in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (Vishaka).

The judgement was unprecedented for several reasons:

the Supreme Court acknowledged and relied to a great extent on international

treaties that had not been transformed into municipal law;

the Supreme Court provided the first authoritative definition of ‘sexual

harassment’ in India; and confronted with a statutory vacuum, it went creative

and proposed the route of ‘judicial legislation’. 

Since there was no legislation in India related to sexual harassment at the workplace,

the court stated that it was free to rely on the Convention on the Elimination of

All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW—signed by India in

1980) in interpreting Articles 14, 15, 19 and 215 of the Constitution.

To justify its decision the court referred to several sources including the

Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary, a

decision of the High Court of Australia and its own earlier decisions.

The Supreme Court set out the following significant guidelines:

The employer and/or other responsible people in a workplace are duty-bound to

prevent or deter sexual harassment and set up processes to resolve, settle, or

prosecute in such cases.

For the first time in India, ‘sexual harassment’ was defined authoritatively.

The definition includes ‘such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour

(whether directly or by implication) such as: physical contact and advances, a

demand or request for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, showing

pornography, and any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct

of sexual nature’.

All employers or persons in charge of workplaces must strive to prevent sexual

harassment and, if any act amounts to a specific offence under the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 or any other law, they must take appropriate action to punish the guilty.

Even if the act is not considered a legal offence or a breach of service rules, the

employer should create appropriate mechanisms so that the complaint is addressed

and redressed in a time-bound manner.

This complaint mechanism must, if necessary, provide a complaints committee, a

special counsellor or other support service, such as assuring confidentiality. The

complaints committee should be headed by a woman, and at least half its members

must be women.

The employer must sensitize female employees to their rights and prominently notify

the court’s guidelines.

Even if a third party is responsible for sexual harassment, the employer must take all

steps necessary to support the victim.

The central and state governments should adopt suitable measures to ensure that

private sector employers implement the guidelines.

Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)

Main Theme: Accepting passive euthanasia as being constitutional

Passive euthanasia is a condition where there is withdrawal of medical treatment

with the deliberate intention to hasten the death of a terminally-ill patient.

The Aruna Shanbaug case triggered debate of Euthanasia in India. 

A writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court of India was filed, asking

for the legalisation of euthanasia so that Aruna’s continued suffering could be

terminated by withdrawing medical support.

Supreme court in 2011 recognised passive euthanasia in this case by which it

had permitted withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from patients not in a position

to make an informed decision.

Subsequent to this, in a landmark judgment (2018), the Supreme Court recognised

passive euthanasia and “living will”.

A ‘living will’ is a concept where a patient can give consent that allows

withdrawal of life support systems if the individual is reduced to a permanent

vegetative state with no real chance of survival.