Top 10 Landmark Supreme Court of India Judgments
As per the constitution of India, the Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial court authority. and the final court of appeal, the highest constitutional court, with the power of judicial review, consisting of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of 34 judges. The Supreme Court of India delivered several landmark verdicts while some were in cases that had been hanging for generations, some others helped pave the way for better functioning of the system. While a five-judge Bench led by outgoing Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi delivered a verdict in the 69-year old Ayodhya land dispute, let’s have a look at the top 10 Supreme Court of India judgments that strike a right balance between justice and faith.
1: Kesavananda Bharati V. State of Kerala
It is one of the most memorable Supreme Court case judgments filed in the year 1970. Keshvananda Bharati was the chief of Edneer Mutt, a religious sect in the Kasaragod district of Kerala. He had possessed certain pieces of land owned under his name. During that period, the state government of Kerala had introduced the Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969.
When the petition was still under consideration by the court, a lot of amendments were already done by the Government during the case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab . The 13 judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment, outlining the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution and providing stability to it. The SC held that although no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the Parliament’s amending power, the “basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.” Though the petitioner lost his case partially, yet it worked out as a savior of Indian democracy and saved the Constitution from losing its spirit. Read Full Judgment Here>>
2: Vishaka and others v State of Rajasthan
It is a landmark judgment throughout history in cases of inappropriate behavior which has been decided by the Supreme Court. that deal with the evil of Sexual Harassment of a woman at her workplace A social worker in Rajasthan, Bhanwari Devi, was gang-raped for halting child marriage.later she lodged a complaint against the accused. The trial court acquitted the accused but she didn’t lose hope and seeing her determination all-female social workers gave their support. They all filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India under the name ‘Vishakha’ against the State of Rajasthan and Union of India to enforce the fundamental rights of working women as per Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The judgment was given by a bench of J. S. Verma (then C.J.I). Sujata Manohar and B. N. Kirpal. The bench provided the basic definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace and provided Vishaka Guidelines to deal with it which formed the basis of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. It is one of the significant legal victories for women’s groups in India. Read full Judgment Here>>
3: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
Police arrested two women for posting allegedly offensive and objectionable comments on Facebook about the propriety of shutting down the city of Mumbai after the death of a political leader. The police made the arrests under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 (ITA), which punishes any person who sends through a computer resource or communication device any information that is grossly offensive, or with the knowledge of its falsity, the information is transmitted to cause annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, injury, hatred, or ill will. On 24th March 2015, the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court struck down section 66A as unconstitutional, as it violated the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This was hailed as a major step in the country’s quest for freedom of speech and expression. Read full Judgment here>>
4: Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India
In June 2016, Johar and five other members of the LGBT community filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India challenging Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. On 6th September 2018, a five-judge Bench unanimously struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Now, LGBT individuals are legally allowed to engage in consensual intercourse making it one of the historic Supreme Court judgments. Supreme Court has made it clear that the choice of LGBT persons to enter into intimate sexual relations with persons of the same sex is an exercise of their personal choice. It is an expression of their autonomy and self-determination. They are equally entitled to the enforcement of their Fundamental Rights. The Apex Court has decriminalized same-sex relations between consenting adults. The Court upheld provisions in Section 377 that criminalize non-consensual acts or sexual acts performed on animals. Read Full Judgment Here
5: M Siddiq (D) ThrLrs v/s Mahant Suresh Das &Or
The Ayodhya land dispute is a political, historical, and socio-religious debate in India that has been on for decades. The dispute is focused on a plot of land in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, which is regarded among the Hindus to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity Ram. The dispute erupted when the Babri Masjid was destroyed during a political rally that turned into a riot on 6 December 1992. On 9 November 2019, Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi overturned the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment that divided the title to the Babri Masjid / Ram Janmabhoomi site. unanimously ruled that the disputed land be given to the Ram Janmabhoomi for the construction of a temple, and the Muslim side be compensated with five acres of land at a prominent site in Ayodhya for the construction of a mosque. Read full Judgment here>>
6: Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India
In India, Adultery law is defined in section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. A non-resident of Kerala named Joseph Shine raised questions on the constitutionality of section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 497 relates to the law of Adultery. On 27th September 2018, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that the law is archaic and arbitrary. This decision brought down the 158 years old Victorian Morality law on adultery. The judgment overruled all the past judgments that upheld the criminalization of adultery. Now, it is no longer a crime but still considered unethical in society. Therefore, the Supreme Court of India does not interfere with the personal and moral lives of the people. After all, the institution of marriage is based on the trust of both partners. Now, adultery is only considered as a civil wrong. The remedy for the act of adultery is the only divorce. Read Full Judgment Here>
7: Shayara Bano vs Union of India & Others
In 2016, Rizwan Ahmed divorced his wife Shayara Bano after 15 years of marriage through instantaneous triple talaq (talaq -e bidat). She filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court asking it to hold three practices among the Muslim community – talaq-e-biddat, polygamy, nikah-halala as unconstitutional. She claimed that these practices violate Articles 14, 15, 21, 25 of the Constitution. The Union of India and the women rights organizations like Bebaak Collective and Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) supported Ms Bano’s plea that these practices are unconstitutional. After accepting Shayara Bano’s petition, the Apex Court formed a 5 judge constitutional bench. On 22nd August 2017, the 5 Judge Bench announced a legal ban on Triple Talaq Case by a 3: 2 majority. The Court has declared that triple talaq in any form is illegal, instant triple talaq was declared unconstitutional by the apex court in its judgment dated 17 August 2017 with up to three years jail for the husband. Read full Judgment here>>
8: SR Bommai vs. Union of India
S.R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of the Janata Dal Government. He offered his services to the state of Karnataka between August 13, 1988, and April 21, 1989. On April 21, 1989, his Government was dismissed under Article 356 of the Constitution. The President’s Rule was imposed, which was the most common mode to keep Opposition parties at bay. Bommai moved to Karnataka High court against the Governor’s decision to recommend President’s Rule. In Karnataka High Court, his writ petition got dismissed. Then, he moved to the Supreme Court. A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court issued the historic order on March 11, 1994. This order had put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State governments under Article 356 by spelling out restrictions. The verdict concluded that the power of the President to dismiss a State government is not absolute, the President should exercise the power only after his proclamation (imposing his/her rule) is approved by both Houses of Parliament. Till then, the President can only suspend the Legislative Assembly by suspending the provisions of the Constitution relating to the Legislative Assembly. “The dissolution of the Legislative Assembly is not a matter of course. It should be resorted to only where it is found necessary for achieving the purposes of the Proclamation,”.Read full judgment here >>
9: Indra Sawhney& Others vs. Union of India & Others
The constitution had recognized social and educational backwardness, but economic backwardness was never recognized. In 1993, Indira Sawhney filed a case against Narasimha Rao Government for allowing only 10 % reservation for economically backward classes of higher caste in Government jobs. The Supreme Court finally gave its judgment where a 50 % cap was imposed on caste-based reservations. The Court upheld separate reservations for OBCs in central government jobs but excluded the creamy layer. The Court further held that reservations in appointments under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution do not apply to promotions. Judgment implemented, with 27% central government reservation for OBCs. However, some of the states denied the existence of the creamy layer, and a report commissioned by the Supreme Court was not implemented. The case was pressed again in 1999. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the creamy layer exclusion and extended it to SCs as well as STs. Read full judgment here>
10: Indian Young Lawyers’ Association v. the State of Kerala
The Sabarimala Temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, used to prohibit the entry of women in their ‘menstruating years’ (between the ages of 10 to 50) because it is a place of worship. In 2006, Indian Young Lawyers Association filed a public interest litigation petition before the Supreme Court. It challenged the Sabarimala Temple’s custom of excluding women. The Association argued that this custom violates the rights to equality under Article 14. Also, the freedom of religion under Article 25 of female worshippers is being violated. In a 4:1 majority, the court ruled that everyone has a right to worship and exclusion of women in Sabarimala violated their fundamental rights and Rule 3(b) of the Public Worship Rules was unconstitutional. Read full Judgment here>>
Original Credit https://www.legitquest.com/legal-guide/top-10-landmark-supreme-court-of-india-judgments