40 Important Constitutional Law Case Laws

Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (0:00)

Decided: 1967. Core question: Can a public electricity board ignore the Constitution just because it sells electricity? The answer changed how courts understand the meaning of "the State".

Facts

• Mohan Lal was a government employee whose services were placed with the Rajasthan State Electricity Board.
• He complained that other employees were promoted while he was unfairly left out.
• He relied on Article 14 and Article 16, which protect equality and equal opportunity in public employment.

Arguments of the Board

• The Board was not "the State" under Article 12.
• Supplying electricity was a commercial activity, not an ordinary government function.
• If the Board was not the State, the employee could not use those constitutional protections against it in the same way.

Judgment (held)

• The Supreme Court rejected the Board's argument.
• The words "other authorities" in Article 12 are not limited to bodies that look exactly like the government departments specifically mentioned there.
• An authority established by law and given legal powers may fall within Article 12.
• The Electricity Board was created under a statute and possessed powers given by that statute.
• The fact that it sold electricity did not automatically make it a private body.

Principle / ratio

Article 12 helps identify the bodies that must respect fundamental rights. The name of the body is not decisive; one must look at its legal character and powers.

Significance

Later judgments developed wider tests for government-controlled agencies and societies. This case was an early and important step in that development.

Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (2:01)

Decided: by the Supreme Court in 1975. Core question: When the government carries out its work through a corporation, do the same constitutional duties still apply?

Facts

• The dispute involved employees of public corporations, including:
  • the Oil and Natural Gas Commission;
  • the Life Insurance Corporation;
  • the Industrial Finance Corporation.
• Questions arose about employment decisions and the regulations governing their service.

Issue

Could the employees claim the protection of constitutional law, or were these corporations simply employers like private companies?

Judgment (held)

• These statutory corporations were authorities covered by Article 12.
• They were brought into existence by laws passed by the legislature.
• Their legal powers and service regulations came from those laws.
• When a binding statutory regulation was violated in removing an employee, the legal consequences could not be treated as an ordinary private contract dispute.

The opinion of Justice K. K. Mathew

• One opinion in the case became especially influential: that of Justice K. K. Mathew.
• The question to ask is whether a body works as an agency or instrumentality of the government.
• The government cannot escape constitutional duties simply by using a corporation instead of a department.

Limit to the principle

• Not every company becomes the State simply because the government regulates it.
• What matters is the legal source of its powers, the nature of its control, and its relationship with the government.
• Later cases developed those factors further.

Exam points

• Connect this judgment with Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal and Ajay Hasia; together they explain the growth of Article 12.
• Final takeaway: public corporations created by statute may be bound by fundamental-right duties.

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (4:13)

Decided: by the Supreme Court in November 1980; reported in 1981. Core question: A college may be managed by a registered society, but can that society still be treated as the government for constitutional purposes?

Facts

• The case concerned admission to an engineering college in Srinagar.
• The college was managed through a registered society.
• Some applicants challenged the admission process, particularly the way interviews were used.

Issue

Could the society be examined under constitutional rules of equality?

Judgment (held)

• The formal label of an organisation is not enough.
• A body does not escape Article 12 merely because it is registered as a society instead of being created directly by a statute.
• Courts must look at its real relationship with the government.
• The Court treated the college society as an instrumentality of the State.
• Admission decisions must meet constitutional standards of fairness and equality.

Indicators of an instrumentality

1. Does the government provide nearly all the money?
2. Does the government hold deep control over management?
3. Does the body carry out functions closely connected with government work?
4. Has a government department effectively been transferred to it?

These indicators guide the inquiry, but they are not a mechanical checklist in which every condition must be present.

Limit to the principle

A government grant alone is not enough to make every private school or charity the State. Later decisions, especially Pradeep Kumar Biswas, clarified the importance of deep and pervasive government control.

Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (6:23)

Decided: by a seven-judge Supreme Court bench in 2002. Core question: If a research society receives government money and follows government directions, does that make it part of the State under the Constitution?

Facts

• The dispute concerned an institute connected with the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).
• Earlier, the Supreme Court had treated this council as outside Article 12 because it was organised as a registered society.
• The later bench had to look more closely at the real relationship between the council and the government.

Judgment (held)

• By a majority, the Supreme Court held that the council was an instrumentality of the State.
• The judgment overruled the earlier decision in Sabhajit Tewary to the extent that it had placed this council outside Article 12.

The test

1. Is the body financially, functionally and administratively dominated by the government?
2. Is that control deep and pervasive, meaning that it reaches the organisation in a substantial and continuing way?

Type of control	What it concerns
Financial control	Money
Functional control	What the organisation does and how its work is directed
Administrative control	Management, leadership and decisions

The Court examined these factors together, not separately.

Ordinary regulation distinguished

Ordinary regulation	Deep and pervasive control
Every private hospital must follow health laws; every private college must obey some education rules.	Major funding, leadership and important operations of the organisation are controlled by the government.
Does not, by itself, make the body the State.	The Article 12 question becomes much stronger, because the organisation may be acting as a government agency.

Exam points

• Do not say that every government-funded body is automatically the State.
• State the complete test and explain the difference between ordinary regulation and pervasive control.

Zee Telefilms v. Union of India

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (8:34)

Decided: 2005. Core question: Cricket is a public passion, but is the organisation that controls Indian cricket legally the State?

Facts

• The dispute followed a bidding process for television rights to cricket matches.
• Zee Telefilms challenged action taken by the cricket board and approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, which allows people to ask the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights.

Issue

Before deciding the complaint, the Court had to ask whether the cricket board itself was an "authority" within Article 12.

Judgment (held)

• By a majority of three judges to two, the Supreme Court said no.
• The board was not created by a law establishing it as a government authority.
• It was not shown to be financially and administratively dominated by the government in the way required by the Article 12 test.
• Government recognition and regulation of cricket were not, by themselves, enough.

Public functions and Article 226

• The Court recognised that the board performs important public functions: it selects teams representing India and exercises powerful control over organised cricket.
• Because of those public duties, appropriate legal challenges to its actions may still be considered by a High Court under Article 226.

Article 32	Article 226
Mainly a remedy for enforcing fundamental rights before the Supreme Court.	Gives High Courts wider power to issue writs, including, in suitable cases, against bodies performing public duties.
A direct petition depends on the body being the State under Article 12.	Can reach a body's public functions even where it is not the State.

A writ means a formal court order.

Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (10:42)

Decided: 1951. Core question: When a new Constitution begins, what happens to criminal proceedings started under an older law?

Facts

• A prosecution had begun under the Indian Press Emergency Powers Act before the Constitution started on 26 January 1950.
• The accused argued that the law was inconsistent with the new freedom of speech under Article 19, and therefore the prosecution should end.

Issue

Article 13(1) says that laws existing before the Constitution are void to the extent that they conflict with fundamental rights. What does "void" mean here? Does it wipe out everything that happened before the Constitution existed?

Judgment (held)

• The Court said no.
• Fundamental rights generally operate from the date the Constitution came into force.
• Article 13 does not automatically erase the past operation of a law or liabilities already created under it.
• An earlier act may still be judged under the law that applied when it happened, subject to any other applicable legal protections.

Significance

• Especially useful when studying the difference between pre-Constitution and post-Constitution laws.
• It also helps explain the doctrine of eclipse, discussed in later cases such as Bhikaji Narain Dhakras.

Exam points: the sequence of analysis

1. Identify when the law was made.
2. Identify when the alleged conduct happened.
3. Ask how Article 13 affects enforcement after the Constitution.

Kesavananda Bharati case

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (12:54)

Core question: Parliament can change the Constitution, but can it remove the very principles that make India a constitutional democracy? This case set the limit.

Facts

• Kesavananda Bharati was the head of a religious institution in Kerala.
• He challenged land reform measures affecting the property of the institution.
• During the case, a much larger constitutional question arose.

Issue

• Could Parliament change any part of the Constitution without any limit?
• Article 368 gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. Earlier cases had disagreed about how far this power extends, especially when amendments affect fundamental rights.

Judgment (held)

• A bench of thirteen Supreme Court judges heard the case.
• By a narrow majority of seven to six, the Court developed the basic structure doctrine (doctrine means a legal principle).
• The judges agreed that Parliament can make very wide constitutional amendments.
• But the majority held that Parliament cannot destroy or damage the basic structure of the Constitution.

Basic features

The judgment did not provide one final closed list of every basic feature. Important examples identified in the opinions and later cases include:

• constitutional supremacy;
• democracy;
• judicial review (the power of courts to examine whether government action follows the Constitution);
• federalism;
• the rule of law.

Significance

The case protects the Constitution from being completely rewritten by a temporary political majority, while still allowing lawful constitutional change.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (15:08)

Decided: 1975, during the Emergency period. Core question: Can a constitutional amendment be used to protect a particular election from being challenged in court?

Facts

• Raj Narain had challenged the election of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to the Lok Sabha.
• The Allahabad High Court found electoral wrongdoing and set aside her election.
• While the election dispute was before the Supreme Court, Parliament passed the Thirty-ninth Constitutional Amendment.
• The amendment inserted Article 329A. One important part attempted to place the election of certain high constitutional office-holders, including the Prime Minister, beyond normal judicial examination. It also tried to protect the disputed election from the usual election-law challenge.

Issue

Could Parliament use the power to amend the Constitution in this way?

Judgment (held)

• The answer was no. The Court struck down clause 4 of Article 329A.
• The judges gave different reasons, but the decision is a key application of the basic structure doctrine.
• The Court also considered changes to election laws made during the dispute. Applying the amended election law, it ultimately set aside the High Court decision against Indira Gandhi and upheld her election.
• So striking down the constitutional clause did not mean that she finally lost her seat.

Reasoning

• Free and fair elections, equality before the law, and the principle that constitutional power has legal limits are central to democratic government.
• An amendment cannot simply protect one election from constitutional standards by placing it outside effective judicial scrutiny.

Limit to the lesson

Elections are governed by specific constitutional provisions and statutes, including the Representation of the People Act. The Court was not saying that judges can ignore all election procedures whenever a dispute arises.

Exam points

• Connect this case with Kesavananda Bharati: Kesavananda explained the basic structure limit; Indira Nehru Gandhi showed that the limit can protect democratic elections in an actual dispute.
• Final takeaway: even a constitutional amendment cannot destroy the essential fairness of the democratic system.

Minerva Mills v. Union of India

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (17:46)

Decided: 1980. Core question: Fundamental Rights protect individuals and Directive Principles guide the government towards social justice. What happens when an amendment tries to disturb that balance?

Facts

• The dispute arose after laws and constitutional changes were made during the Emergency period.
• The Supreme Court examined provisions of the Forty-second Constitutional Amendment that attempted to widen the amending power of Parliament and reduce the ability of courts to review constitutional amendments.

Judgment (held)

1. Changes to the amending power

• One change sought to declare that there could be no limitation on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
• Another tried to prevent courts from questioning amendments on any ground.
• The Court struck down both, because limited amending power and judicial review are part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

2. Article 31C

• Originally, Article 31C protected certain laws implementing the Directive Principles in Article 39(b) and (c) against particular fundamental-right challenges.
• The Forty-second Amendment tried to extend this protection to laws giving effect to any Directive Principle.
• The Court invalidated that expansion.
• The narrower protection associated with Article 39(b) and (c) remains important; a later Supreme Court ruling confirmed that the earlier, limited form of Article 31C survived.

Fundamental Rights (Part III)	Directive Principles (Part IV)
Protect individuals against misuse of power.	Guide the State toward social and economic justice.
The State cannot remove this protection altogether merely by pursuing a good social goal.	Generally not directly enforceable in court, yet important in interpreting law and shaping policy.

Principle / ratio

• The Constitution values both Part III and Part IV.
• The State cannot claim that pursuing a good social goal gives it permission to remove fundamental-right protection altogether.
• Harmony between Part III and Part IV is a constitutional value.

Exam points

• Connect this case with Kesavananda Bharati: both protect the basic structure from unlimited amendment.
• Final lesson: Parliament has wide powers, but not the power to destroy constitutional limits or the balance between rights and social goals.

E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (20:24)

Decided: November 1973; reported in 1974. Core idea: Equality does not mean only treating similar people alike; it also asks whether the government is using its power fairly and for proper reasons.

Facts

• Royappa was a senior officer in the Indian Administrative Service.
• He challenged decisions affecting his posting and claimed that the State had acted unfairly.
• The Supreme Court examined the complaint under constitutional equality principles.

Judgment (held)

• The Court did not accept his challenge on the facts.
• But the judgment became famous for a much wider explanation of Article 14.
• Justice P. N. Bhagwati described equality and arbitrariness as opposing ideas.

Principle / ratio: two parts of Article 14

Reasonable classification (traditional test)	Rule against arbitrariness (Royappa)
Before this case, Article 14 was often taught mainly through this test.	A wider idea developed by Royappa.
Asks whether a law divides people into groups using a clear difference, and whether that difference has a reasonable connection with the objective of the law.	Government action must not be capricious. Equality is not merely a mathematical comparison between two persons; fair treatment also matters in the way the State uses power.

Limit to the principle

• Not every disappointing government decision automatically violates Article 14.
• A claimant must still show a real legal defect.
• Courts consider the facts, the statutory rules, and the nature of the government power.

Significance

Later judgments, including Maneka Gandhi, further developed this understanding of equality and fairness.

Indra Sawhney case

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (22:41)

Core question: How can the Constitution address social disadvantage through reservation in public employment while protecting equality for everyone?

Facts

• The Union government moved to implement the Mandal Commission recommendation for reservation in central government employment for Other Backward Classes.
• The decision led to legal challenges and a national debate about equality, social disadvantage and public employment.

Issue

A bench of nine Supreme Court judges examined Article 16, especially Article 16(4), which permits reservation for backward classes that are not adequately represented in government services.

Judgment (held)

1. The Court upheld reservation for Other Backward Classes.
2. It developed the creamy layer rule, which excludes the socially advanced sections of those classes from the benefit.
3. It generally treated 50 percent as the ceiling for total reservations under the framework it was deciding, while recognising exceptional situations.
4. Reservation under Article 16(4) did not extend to promotions under that provision.

Later changes

• Later constitutional amendments introduced separate rules for reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Do not apply the 1992 position without noting those later changes.
• The constitutional framework later changed through provisions concerning economically weaker sections. Those provisions were considered separately in Janhit Abhiyan; do not confuse that ruling with the exact issues decided in Indra Sawhney.

Principle / ratio

Equality is not always achieved by treating everyone identically; sometimes real inequality requires special measures. At the same time, reservation policy must operate within constitutional limits.

Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (25:08)

Decided: 7 November 2022. Core question: Can Parliament create a separate reservation category based on economic disadvantage?

Facts

• Parliament passed the One Hundred and Third Constitutional Amendment.
• It added clauses to Articles 15 and 16 allowing special provisions, including reservation of up to 10 percent, for economically weaker sections (EWS) other than groups covered by specified existing reservation provisions.
• Several petitions challenged the amendment.

Arguments of the challengers

• Excluding Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes from this category was discriminatory.
• Economic disadvantage alone could not justify reservation.
• The additional quota damaged the basic structure of the Constitution.

Judgment (held)

• A five-judge Supreme Court bench upheld the amendment by a majority of three to two.
• The majority concluded that the new EWS reservation framework did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
• It accepted that affirmative action, meaning special measures to improve opportunity, can address economic disadvantage.

Dissent

Two judges disagreed. Their dissenting opinions raised serious concerns, especially about excluding poor people who belong to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class communities from this particular benefit.

Practical note

The practical requirements for an EWS certificate come from the relevant government rules. The judgment itself should not be treated as a complete list of application conditions.

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (27:36)

Decided: 24 March 2015. Core question: Can the government arrest someone simply because an online message is annoying or offensive?

Facts

• Section 66A of the Information Technology Act made certain online messages criminal offences.
• It used broad words such as "offensive", "annoying" and "inconvenient".
• People could be arrested for posts that others disliked, even when the posts did not call for violence.
• Shreya Singhal challenged the provision.

Issues

1. Did the law violate freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a)?
2. Could it be justified by the restrictions allowed under Article 19(2)?

Judgment (held)

• The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in its entirety.
• Section 66A was too vague (its meaning is unclear) and too wide (it covers speech that the Constitution protects).
• The Court upheld a different blocking provision, Section 69A, with its legal safeguards.

Discussion, advocacy and incitement

Discussion	Advocacy	Incitement
Talking about an idea.	Supporting that idea.	Encouraging unlawful action in a way relevant to the constitutional grounds for restricting speech.
Protected: people can discuss unpopular views.	Protected: people can even strongly support those views.	May be restricted on constitutionally permitted grounds.

A criminal law cannot punish people merely because someone finds their words annoying.

Limit to the principle

Freedom of speech is not unlimited. Laws dealing with genuine threats, unlawful incitement and other constitutionally permitted restrictions may still apply.

Kedar Nath Singh

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (29:58)

Core question: A person sharply criticises a government in a political speech. Does that criticism become sedition? The Supreme Court drew a vital legal distinction.

Facts

• Kedar Nath Singh was a political worker who made a strongly worded speech criticising the government.
• He was prosecuted under Section 124A of the old Indian Penal Code, the colonial-era sedition provision.

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (continued): Sedition and Article 19

Issue

Article 19 protects freedom of speech. Article 19(2), however, allows reasonable restrictions on certain grounds, including public order and security of the State. The constitutional question was whether the old sedition law could be used against every harsh political speech.

Judgment (held)

A Constitution Bench upheld the provision, but only after giving it a narrow meaning:

• Criticism of the government, even in strong language, is not enough by itself.
• The provision was limited to speech or acts involving an intention or tendency to incite violence or create public disorder.
• Mere criticism, however strong, does not amount to sedition.

Significance

The case tried to balance public safety with the freedom to criticise those in power. A democracy needs disagreement, and the government and the nation are not the same thing.

Current-law position

• In May 2022, the Supreme Court ordered pending proceedings under old Section 124A to be kept in abeyance while reconsideration was pending.
• From July 2024, the old Indian Penal Code was replaced by the B.N.S.
• Section 152 of the B.N.S. is a different statutory provision and must be examined on its own wording.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (32:08)

Decided: 24 August 2017.

Issue

Can the government control every part of a person's private life just because the Constitution does not separately use the word "privacy"?

Facts

The case arose during constitutional challenges connected with the Aadhaar system. A retired judge, Justice Puttaswamy, questioned government collection and use of personal information. The Supreme Court first had to settle whether privacy itself was protected by the Constitution.

Judgment (held)

Nine judges considered the question. All nine recognised privacy as a fundamental right, protected by Part III of the Constitution, especially Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty.

The Court also rejected older statements suggesting that the Constitution did not protect privacy.

Meaning of privacy

Privacy is not only about hiding secrets. It includes:

• control over personal information;
• decisions about one's body;
• important choices in private life.

Limits: privacy is not absolute

A lawful restriction on privacy must satisfy constitutional requirements. The judgment discussed:

1. Legality
2. A legitimate State objective
3. Proportionality

The separate question of whether particular parts of Aadhaar were valid was decided later, in another judgment.

Exam points

• Privacy is a fundamental right.
• It is closely connected with dignity and personal liberty.
• Government interference needs constitutional justification.
• Privacy means a person has a protected private space in life, not that a person is completely beyond every law.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (34:20)

Decided: 6 September 2018.

Issue

Do constitutional rights protect personal identity and private relationships even when many people disagree with those choices?

Facts

Under Section 377 of the old Indian Penal Code, consensual sexual relations between adults of the same sex could be treated as criminal. This law caused fear and discrimination. In an earlier judgment, Suresh Kumar Koushal, the Supreme Court had refused to strike down that part of the law. Navtej Singh Johar and other petitioners challenged the restriction again.

Judgment (held)

• A five-judge Constitution Bench, unanimously, held that criminalising consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex violated fundamental rights.
• To that extent, Section 377 could not operate.
• The Court overruled the contrary position in Suresh Kumar Koushal.

Reasoning

1. Article 14 protects equality.
2. Article 15 addresses prohibited discrimination.
3. Article 21 protects dignity, privacy and personal liberty.

The judges explained that sexual orientation forms an important part of personal identity.

Limits of the judgment

• It did not create a general right to marry for same-sex couples; that was considered in a later case.
• It did not protect sexual acts without consent or conduct involving minors.
• It did not decide every question about family rights.
• The old criminal provision is no longer part of the general criminal law framework introduced through the B.N.S.

Exam points

• Remember the date (6 September 2018), the five-judge unanimous decision, and the connection with Articles 14, 15 and 21.
• Constitutional dignity belongs to every person, including people whose identities are unpopular.

Joseph Shine v. Union of India

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (36:44)

Decided: 27 September 2018.

Issue

When a marriage breaks down because of an outside relationship, should the State send someone to prison? The ruling separated crime from matrimonial law.

Facts

Section 497 of the old Indian Penal Code punished a man for certain sexual relations with the wife of another man. Its features were:

• The consent of the husband changed whether the offence existed.
• The married woman was not punished under the provision.
• The rule treated her as if control over her choices belonged to her husband.

Joseph Shine challenged this law.

Judgment (held)

A five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously struck down the provision. The judges explained that marriage does not take away the dignity of a woman and her equal status as a person.

Reasoning

• Article 14 protects equality before the law.
• Article 15 guards against specified forms of discrimination.
• Article 21 protects dignity, privacy and personal liberty.

The Court found that the adultery offence rested on unfair ideas about the position of women in marriage.

Crime versus other legal consequences

• The Supreme Court later clarified that the judgment does not automatically prevent disciplinary action for adultery under special rules applicable to armed forces personnel. A disciplinary matter and an ordinary criminal prosecution are different legal questions.
• The B.N.S., which replaced the old Indian Penal Code from July 2024, does not reintroduce the former general adultery offence.

Shayara Bano v. Union of India

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (39:04)

Decided: 22 August 2017.

Issue

Can a husband end a marriage immediately by saying talaq three times in one sitting?

Facts

Shayara Bano challenged a practice under which a Muslim husband could try to end a marriage immediately by pronouncing talaq three times in one sitting. This was commonly called instant triple talaq, or talaq-e-biddat. The case raised difficult questions about personal law, equality and religious freedom.

Judgment (held)

A five-judge bench decided by 3:2 that the practice could not continue. The judges in the majority did not all use the same reasoning.

Judge(s)	Approach	Result
Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice U.U. Lalit	Treated the practice as covered by the legal framework they examined and found it manifestly arbitrary under Article 14	Practice cannot continue
Justice Kurian Joseph	Instant triple talaq was not supported by the essential teachings of the Quran and was not legally effective	Same final result by another route
Two dissenting judges	Disagreed with the result and would have approached the question differently	Minority

Later legislation

Parliament later enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. It declares specified forms of instant talaq void and illegal and creates criminal consequences under the statutory conditions. That later law is distinct from the Supreme Court judgment of 2017.

Exam points

• Instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat).
• The 3:2 result.
• The different reasons used by the judges who formed the majority.
• A personal-law practice cannot simply be assumed valid because it has been followed for a long time.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (41:20)

Decided: 1978.

Facts

Maneka Gandhi held an Indian passport. The government took action to impound (take away or hold) her passport in the public interest. When she asked why, the government did not initially give her the reasons. She challenged the decision in the Supreme Court.

Issue

Article 21 says that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Does this mean that any procedure written in any law is enough, even if the procedure is unfair?

Judgment (held)

• Constitutional fairness matters. A procedure restricting personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable, not arbitrary or oppressive.
• Articles 14, 19 and 21 work together. Article 14 protects equality; Article 19 protects particular freedoms of citizens; Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. A law affecting liberty may need to satisfy more than one of these provisions.

Limits

The case does not mean that every travel restriction is illegal. Restrictions may be lawful when the relevant law and constitutional safeguards are followed. The important point is that the procedure cannot be reduced to a meaningless formality.

Significance

Earlier, A.K. Gopalan had taken a more separate approach to some fundamental rights. Maneka Gandhi helped move constitutional law toward a wider and more connected understanding of rights.

A.K. Gopalan	Maneka Gandhi
More separate approach to some fundamental rights	Wider and more connected understanding of rights (Articles 14, 19 and 21 work together)

Exam points

• Just, fair and reasonable procedure.
• The connection between Articles 14, 19 and 21.
• Protection against arbitrary restrictions on liberty.
• Government power over liberty must be exercised lawfully and fairly.

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala case)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (43:39)

Main judgment: 28 September 2018.

Issue

When religious tradition and equality appear to conflict, how should a constitutional court approach the dispute?

Facts

The Sabarimala temple in Kerala had a practice that prevented women of a particular age group, broadly between 10 and 50 years, from entering the temple. The exclusion was linked to ideas about menstruation and religious tradition.

Arguments

Petitioners	Defenders of the practice
The practice violated equality and the rights of women to practise religion	The temple had a protected religious practice, and courts should not interfere with religious freedom

Judgment (held)

A five-judge bench decided by 4:1 that the exclusion was unconstitutional. The majority concluded that the challenged rule and practice could not be sustained against the relevant constitutional and legal protections.

Dissent: Justice Indu Malhotra dissented. She gave greater weight to religious autonomy and cautioned about courts deciding matters of faith at the request of those outside a religious community.

Provisions involved

• Article 14: equality.
• Article 25: freedom of conscience and religion, subject to constitutional limits.
• Article 26: certain rights of religious denominations, within constitutional conditions.

Later proceedings

Later proceedings raised wider questions about religious freedom and how courts should assess essential religious practices. Those broader questions were referred to a larger nine-judge bench.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (45:55)

Decided: 1994.

Issue

Can the Union government dismiss an elected State ministry merely because political leaders claim it has lost support? Can courts review a proclamation issued by the President?

Background and facts

Article 356 allows the imposition of President's Rule in a State when the constitutional machinery has failed. This is an exceptional power. In the past, central governments had sometimes dismissed elected State governments based on disputed political claims. S.R. Bommai, a former Chief Minister of Karnataka, challenged the use of that power.

Judgment (held)

• A nine-judge bench held that a proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. Courts can examine whether relevant material supported the decision and whether constitutional limits were respected. This does not mean judges simply replace every political judgment with their own opinion.
• Floor test: if a State government is said to have lost majority support in the assembly, the proper place to test that support is ordinarily the floor of the assembly, not a private assessment outside it.
• Secularism was recognised as a basic feature of the Constitution.
• If a proclamation is found unconstitutional, the Court may grant effective relief, including restoration in appropriate circumstances. This gave judicial review real meaning.

Exam points

• Article 356.
• The federal balance between the Union and the States.
• Secularism as part of the basic structure.
• An elected State government cannot be dismissed through arbitrary use of emergency power.

Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (48:10)

Decided: 8 November 2024, by a seven-judge bench.

Issue

Can a college lose its minority character simply because Parliament later gives it university status? The answer turns on who established it.

Article 30

Article 30 gives religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

Facts

The dispute concerned Aligarh Muslim University. Its history goes back to the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, established through the efforts of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and others. The university later received its legal form through a law passed in 1920.

An older Supreme Court decision, S. Azeez Basha, had denied minority status, relying heavily on the fact that the university was created through legislation.

Judgment (held)

In 2024, the Supreme Court rejected that narrow approach by a majority of 4:3. An institution does not automatically lose its minority character because a statute gives it legal status. Courts must examine the real history of its establishment. Relevant questions include:

• Who developed the idea?
• Who raised resources?
• For whose educational benefit was it mainly founded?

Limit of the judgment

Exam points

• Article 30.
• The difference between establishing and incorporating an institution.
• The need to examine historical facts.
• Legal status depends on who truly established the institution, not only on the form of legislation.

Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (50:28)

Considered: a series of petitions beginning in 1979.

Issue

What happens when people who have not been convicted spend years in prison while their trials barely move forward?

Facts

Reports revealed that large numbers of undertrial prisoners were held in Bihar jails. Some had remained in prison for years. In certain situations, the time spent waiting was longer than the punishment they might have received if convicted.

The matter reached the Supreme Court through public interest litigation (PIL), which allows a public-spirited person to bring certain problems affecting people who cannot easily approach the courts themselves.

Judgment (held)

• A speedy trial is part of the protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21. A criminal process cannot ignore the effect of long and unnecessary delay on an accused person.
• The Court emphasised free legal aid for those who cannot afford a lawyer.
• It issued directions concerning the prisoners before it, to prevent poor people from being trapped in jail simply because they lacked money or access to legal help.

Limits

The judgment does not mean every delayed case is automatically dismissed. Courts consider the reasons for delay, the nature of the case and the legal remedies available. But speed and fairness are not optional luxuries in criminal justice.

Exam points

• Article 21.
• The rights of undertrial prisoners.
• Legal aid.
• The development of public interest litigation.
• Justice must not become meaningless because a poor accused person waits in prison for years.

Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (Asiad Workers case)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (52:35)

Decided: 1982.

Facts

During construction projects connected with the Asian Games in Delhi, organisations investigated working conditions. Reports raised concerns about low wages, the use of contractors and violations of labour protections. The matter reached the Supreme Court through public interest litigation.

Provision: Article 23

Article 23 prohibits traffic in human beings, begar and other similar forms of forced labour.

Judgment (held)

• Forced labour can be wider than physical compulsion. A worker may be forced by serious economic pressure.
• If a person is made to work for less than the minimum wage fixed by law, that may violate Article 23, even though the employer never uses chains or physical force. A worker facing poverty and hunger may have no realistic choice; constitutional protection must consider the actual conditions in which work happens.
• Article 23 is not limited to wrongdoing by the government. The prohibition can apply to private persons, including contractors.
• The State must take effective steps to ensure compliance with the law.

Significance for PIL

Workers who are poor or vulnerable may struggle to reach a court. An organisation acting in good faith can, in suitable circumstances, seek protection of their legal rights.

Exam points

• Article 23.
• Economic compulsion.
• The constitutional duty to protect workers even when private contractors are involved.
• Freedom to work means little if poverty is used to force people to accept unlawful conditions.

Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (54:45)

Decided: 12 July 2005.

Facts

The dispute concerned the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act). That special law operated in Assam and provided a particular system for deciding whether someone was an illegal migrant.

Burden of proof and arguments

• Under the general Foreigners Act, the legal burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner ordinarily falls on the person concerned.
• The Assam system under the IMDT Act worked differently and placed important difficulties in the way of identifying illegal migrants.
• The petitioner argued that this made the law ineffective.

Provision: Article 355

The Court examined the constitutional position, including Article 355, which places a duty on the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance.

Judgment (held)

• The Court struck down the special Assam law.
• The framework did not adequately address the serious problem of illegal migration as examined in the case and was constitutionally invalid.
• The judgment also discussed the unequal position created by using a different, ineffective process in Assam.

Limits

• The judgment does not mean that every person who has come to Assam from another country is automatically an illegal migrant. The legal status of each person must be considered under the applicable law, including rules on citizenship and proper procedure.
• Questions under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act were examined in a separate constitutional case in 2024. Do not confuse that later ruling with Sarbananda Sonowal.

Exam points

• The special Assam law (IMDT Act).
• The burden of proof issue.
• Article 355.
• Immigration laws must operate within the Constitution and provide a workable legal system.

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (57:15)

Decided: 1986.

Issue

Is respectfully standing for the National Anthem enough, or can schoolchildren always be forced to sing? Freedom of conscience was the central question.

Facts

Three children belonged to the religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses. Their sincere religious belief prevented them from singing the National Anthem, but they did not disrespect it. They stood quietly and respectfully whenever it was sung at school. The school authorities expelled them for refusing to sing.

Arguments

The family challenged the action, arguing that it violated freedom of conscience and expression under the Constitution.

Judgment (held)

• The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the children.
• Their respectful silence did not amount to disrespect of the National Anthem.
• Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of expression, which also includes the freedom not to express a particular message.
• Article 25 protects freedom of conscience and religion, subject to constitutional limits.

Limits

The judgment is not permission to insult the National Anthem. Nor does it mean that every claim of personal preference must defeat school discipline. The case concerned sincere religious belief and the absence of disrespect.

Exam points

• Article 19: freedom of expression.
• Article 25: freedom of conscience.
• The children stood respectfully.
• Constitutional freedom protects people even when their practice is different from that of the majority.

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (59:30)

Year of decision: 1985. Theme: right to livelihood as part of the right to life under Article 21.

Facts

• The dispute involved pavement dwellers and people living in informal settlements in Bombay (now Mumbai).
• The authorities proposed to remove them from public land.
• Many residents said they had come to the city because they could earn a living nearby. If removed without protection, they feared losing both their shelter and their work.

Issue

Does the right to life under Article 21 protect the means needed to survive, that is, livelihood?

Judgment (held)

• Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. The right to life includes the right to livelihood, because a person cannot meaningfully live without the means to survive.
• Public roads and pavements are meant for public use, and the State has legal powers to regulate and clear unlawful encroachments.
• The Court did not declare an unlimited fundamental right to occupy any pavement forever.
• The Court rejected the idea that the residents had completely lost their rights simply because of earlier statements made in proceedings.

Principle / ratio

The judgment strikes a balance. The State can enforce lawful rules, but when government action seriously affects life and livelihood, constitutionally fair procedures matter. Life means more than merely staying alive; it includes the conditions necessary for living with basic dignity.

Exam points

• Remember the facts (pavement dwellers), the link between livelihood and life, and the need for lawful procedure.
• Government decisions affecting the survival of poor people require special attention to constitutional fairness.

S. P. Gupta v. Union of India

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:01:40)

Year of decision: 1981. Also known as the First Judges Case, because it considered important questions connected with judicial appointments and transfers. Theme here: access to constitutional justice, relaxed standing and public interest litigation (PIL).

Background: the rule of standing

Usually, a person who approaches a court must show that the dispute concerns that person's own legal rights. This is called standing (locus standi). But a large group of poor or vulnerable people may suffer a serious legal wrong and be unable to hire a lawyer, collect papers and reach the court themselves.

Issue

Can a public-minded person go to court on behalf of poor people who cannot approach the court themselves?

Judgment (held)

• In suitable public law cases, a person acting in good faith may approach the court on behalf of those who cannot do so because of poverty, helplessness or disability.
• This helped develop public interest litigation (PIL).

Significance: judicial appointments

The judgment belongs to the early history of the debate about the independence of the judiciary and the roles of the executive and the judiciary in appointments. Later cases changed the rules on appointments, so the First Judges Case must not be taught as the final current rule on that separate topic.

Limits of PIL

• PIL is not a free licence to file any complaint about any public issue.
• Courts can reject petitions filed for personal advantage, publicity or political competition.
• The person bringing the case should act honestly and address a real legal wrong.

Exam points

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:03:48)

Date of decision: 19 October 2006. Bench: five judges. Theme: reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Background

• A series of constitutional amendments dealt with reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public employment, especially in promotions (moving from a lower position to a higher one at work).
• Earlier, Indira Sawhney had ruled that Article 16(4) did not itself provide for reservation in promotion.
• Parliament later introduced specific constitutional provisions, including Article 16(4A), addressing promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Issues

• Can the Constitution permit reservation in government promotions?
• Were the amendments valid, and what conditions must the State satisfy before creating such a policy?

Judgment (held)

• The five-judge bench upheld the amendments.
• These provisions are enabling provisions: they permit the State to act. They do not automatically require the government to give reservation in every service or post.
• The government must follow constitutional limits when creating such policies. The Court discussed:
  • inadequate representation;
  • administrative efficiency under Article 335;
  • the need for supporting data.

Later development

In Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018), the Supreme Court said that the State does not need to prove the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes again for this purpose. Other legal conditions and later developments must still be considered.

Exam points

T. M. A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:06:05)

Year of decision: 2002. Bench: eleven Supreme Court judges. Theme: freedom to establish and manage educational institutions, especially minority educational rights.

Facts and provisions involved

• The dispute concerned the freedom to establish and manage educational institutions, especially the rights of religious and linguistic minorities.
• Article 30 protects minorities who establish and administer institutions of their choice.
• Article 19(1)(g) is also important for citizens in the broader discussion of educational activity.

Issue

Where should constitutional law draw the line between the independence of educational institutions and the responsibility of the State to maintain educational standards and fairness?

Judgment (held)

• Minority status is normally assessed with reference to the population of a State, rather than only the population of India as a whole. This matters because a community may be a majority nationally but a minority in a particular State.
• Private educational institutions have important rights in administration. But those rights are not a licence to demand unreasonable fees, practise capitation fee collection, or ignore lawful measures to maintain academic quality.
• The Court distinguished among aided and unaided institutions, and minority and non-minority institutions. Their rights and the extent of regulation are not necessarily identical.

Institutional autonomy	State regulation
Minorities may establish and administer institutions of their choice (Article 30).	Constitutionally valid rules to ensure qualified teachers, proper examinations and fair standards may still apply.
Private institutions have important rights in administration.	No licence for unreasonable fees, capitation fees, or ignoring lawful quality measures.
Rights vary by category: aided or unaided, minority or non-minority.	The extent of regulation also varies; not every private college enjoys exactly the same freedom.

Later development

Later decisions, including P. A. Inamdar, examined admissions and fee regulation in more detail. T. M. A. Pai is the foundation, but not the only judgment needed to understand current education law.

Exam points

National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:08:25)

Often called the NALSA judgment. Date of decision: 15 April 2014. Theme: legal recognition of gender identity and transgender rights.

Facts

The petition raised the legal and social difficulties experienced by transgender people. Many faced exclusion in education, employment, health care and identity documents.

Issue

Does constitutional equality apply fully to people whose gender identity does not fit traditional categories? What does the Constitution require when official systems refuse to recognise that identity?

Judgment (held)

• Transgender persons have the right to legal recognition of their gender identity, including self-identified gender.
• The judgment acknowledged the recognition of a third gender and protected the freedom of persons to identify their gender.
• Governments were directed to take steps addressing educational, social and medical needs, and to consider affirmative measures for transgender persons. Affirmative measures are positive actions designed to reduce disadvantage.

Constitutional provisions relied on

Article	Protection
Article 14	Equality before the law
Article 15	Protection against specified discrimination
Article 16	Equality in public employment
Article 21	Dignity and personal liberty

Later developments and limits

• Later statutes and decisions have affected how identity documents and benefits are administered. The judgment explains the fundamental constitutional principles, but particular application procedures must be checked under current law.
• Recognition of gender identity must not be confused with a ruling on marriage, adoption or other family rights. Those are separate legal subjects not decided in this case.

Exam points

Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:10:50)

Year of decision: 1983. Theme: compensation for illegal detention as a constitutional remedy.

Facts

• Rudul Sah had been acquitted in a criminal case.
• Despite his acquittal, he remained in prison for more than 14 years. A person legally cleared was still kept behind bars by the State.
• He approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, which allows a person to seek enforcement of fundamental rights.

Issue

Can a constitutional court order financial compensation for a serious violation of liberty under Article 21?

Judgment (held)

• The Court examined the serious violation of his liberty under Article 21.
• The Supreme Court ordered the State to pay him compensation. It did not limit the remedy to merely telling officials to release the person.
• When the violation is serious, a monetary remedy may be necessary to make constitutional protection meaningful.

Limits

Not every detention complaint automatically leads to the same amount of compensation. The Court examines the facts, the nature of the violation and the appropriate remedy. Ordinary civil remedies may also be relevant.

Significance

The judgment is connected with later cases such as Nilabati Behera, which discussed compensation for serious fundamental-right violations, including custodial death.

Exam points

Bhikaji Narayan Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:12:58)

Year of decision: 1955. Theme: the doctrine of eclipse.

Facts

• Before the Constitution came into force, a law in the Central Provinces and Berar allowed the government to create a monopoly in motor transport services.
• After the Constitution began, people challenged the law because Article 19 protected the freedom of citizens to carry on trade or business.

Issue

If a law made before the Constitution conflicts with a fundamental right, is it completely dead forever? Or can it become enforceable again if the constitutional obstacle is later removed?

Judgment (held)

• The Supreme Court explained the doctrine of eclipse.
• A pre-Constitution law inconsistent with a fundamental right may remain legally present but becomes unenforceable against those protected by that right, to the extent of the conflict.
• If a later constitutional change removes the inconsistency, the old law may again operate without being enacted from the beginning.
• In this case, the First Constitutional Amendment had changed the relevant freedom-of-trade framework and permitted certain State monopolies. The Court held that this change removed the obstacle to the operation of the law.

Exam points

• This judgment concerns the effect of inconsistency on a pre-Constitution law. The rules for laws enacted after the Constitution are not always identical.
• Read Article 13 and the later judgments together.
• Main lesson: a pre-Constitution law may be eclipsed rather than wiped out for every purpose.

Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:15:08)

Year of decision: 1959. Theme: can fundamental rights be waived?

Facts

• Basheshar Nath entered into a settlement connected with income tax proceedings.
• Later, he argued that the legal arrangement conflicted with the equality protection of Article 14.

Issue

Could the government say that he had voluntarily waived (given up) his fundamental right? Can a person sign away the protection of constitutional equality?

Judgment (held)

• The Supreme Court refused to apply a general doctrine of waiver to fundamental rights in this context.
• The judges gave different reasons, but the decision stands for the strong principle that fundamental-right protections are not simply private benefits which citizens may surrender and thereby free the State from constitutional duties.

Ordinary legal rights	Fundamental rights
Can be waived; parties may settle a money dispute or choose not to bring a claim.	No general doctrine of waiver; agreement or conduct cannot validate State action that breaches fundamental-right limits.
Private benefits of the parties.	Govern the relationship between the individual and the State and protect wider public values.

Limits

This does not mean people can never make binding settlements or choose not to bring legal claims. The specific issue is whether agreement or conduct can validate State action that violates fundamental-right limits. The Constitution cannot be bypassed so easily.

Related case

A related point appears in Olga Tellis, where the Court rejected the idea that pavement dwellers lost all constitutional protection merely because of earlier statements.

Exam points

• Remember Article 14, the meaning of waiver, and the difference between ordinary contractual choices and constitutional protection.

Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:17:24)

Date of decision: January 2023. Bench: Constitution Bench. Theme: free speech, remarks by ministers and public officials, and Article 19(2).

Issues

• How should remarks by public officials be treated, and can constitutional rights be protected when harm comes from people other than the government?
• Can courts create new grounds for restricting speech beyond those already listed in Article 19(2)?

Judgment (held)

• The majority held that the grounds for restricting free speech in Article 19(2) are exhaustive. Exhaustive means the list is complete. Courts cannot add a new restriction simply because a statement seems offensive or irresponsible.
• The majority also said that rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State, in the way explained by the judgment.
• Justice B. V. Nagarathna disagreed with the majority on that aspect of direct horizontal application.
• A statement made by a minister cannot automatically be treated as the official statement of the government. The facts and the legal relationship matter.

Vertical application	Horizontal application
Rights invoked against government authorities.	The effect of rights between private persons.

These expressions help explain the debate, but they do not remove the need to identify the correct legal remedy in an actual case.

Exam points

• Remember that the list of speech-restriction grounds under Article 19(2) is complete (exhaustive).
• Remember the difference between a personal statement and an official government act.

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:19:40)

Date of decision: 26 September 2018. Theme: reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; correction of part of M. Nagaraj.

Background

• In M. Nagaraj, the Supreme Court had upheld constitutional amendments permitting reservation in promotion, but also laid down conditions that State governments had to consider.
• A major debate concerned whether the government had to collect data showing that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are backward before providing reservation in promotion. Jarnail Singh examined this part of the Nagaraj ruling.

Issue

Must the government prove again that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are backward before making rules for reservation in promotion?

Judgment (held)

• The State does not need to prove the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes again for this purpose. Their constitutional recognition cannot be treated as an open question requiring a new test of backwardness.
• The Court did not say that a promotion reservation policy needs no evidence or constitutional safeguards at all. The issue of inadequate representation and the relevant constitutional requirements still matter.
• The judgment also applied the creamy layer principle in this context, an issue that has generated further legal debate.

The line of cases

1. Indira Sawhney explained the original Article 16 framework.
2. Later constitutional amendments changed it.
3. M. Nagaraj upheld those amendments.
4. Jarnail Singh then adjusted part of Nagaraj.

Exam points

Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds)

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:22:01)

Date of decision: 15 February 2024. Bench: five-judge Constitution Bench, unanimous. Theme: voters' right to know about political funding.

Facts

• Electoral bonds were a way for eligible donors to give money to political parties through banking instruments.
• Under the scheme, the identity of donors was not generally disclosed to the public.
• The challenge argued that this secrecy prevented voters from knowing who was funding political parties.

Issue

Should voters be able to discover who gives money to political parties? Was the secrecy in election funding constitutionally valid?

Arguments

• Challengers: secrecy prevented voters from knowing who funded political parties.
• State: donor privacy and reducing black money supported the scheme.

Judgment (held)

• The scheme was examined under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression). Informed voting depends on access to important information about political financing.
• The Constitution Bench unanimously struck down the electoral bonds scheme. The non-disclosure framework violated the right of voters to information.
• The Court also struck down the legal change allowing unlimited contributions by companies to political parties, finding it manifestly arbitrary under Article 14.
• The State's arguments of donor privacy and reducing black money were considered, but the legal arrangements could not be justified in the form challenged.

Limits and connected case

• The judgment does not mean that every political donation is unlawful. The Court decided the constitutional validity of a particular anonymous donation scheme and connected statutory changes.
• It is closely connected with earlier election-rights decisions, including Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002), which recognised the entitlement of voters to important information about candidates.

Exam points

Shirur Mutt case

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:24:28)

Formal title: Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt. Year of decision: 1954. Theme: religious freedom and the foundation of the essential religious practices discussion.

Facts

• A mutt (math) is a Hindu religious institution, often connected with spiritual teaching and religious practice.
• The dispute arose from a Madras law dealing with the administration of Hindu religious institutions and endowments (property set aside for religious purposes).

Issue

Religious institutions have freedom to manage religious affairs. Can the State regulate their finances and property without violating that freedom? How are religious matters to be distinguished from secular administration?

Provisions examined

• Article 25: freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limits.
• Article 26: certain rights of religious denominations, including the management of their own affairs in matters of religion.

Judgment (held)

• Religion is not only belief. It may include religious practices and rituals that form part of a religion.
• Religious denominations have constitutional protection in managing matters of religion.
• The State may regulate secular activities associated with religious practice within constitutional boundaries.

Matters of religion	Secular administration
Belief, and religious practices and rituals forming part of the religion (e.g. choosing the form of worship).	Practical management such as finances or property records, rather than the content of worship.
Protected under Articles 25 and 26.	May be regulated by the State within constitutional boundaries.

Significance

The judgment became a foundation for later discussion of essential religious practices. "Essential" means central or important to the religion in the legal test. Later cases have debated how courts should apply that test, so the doctrine should not be treated as completely settled in every detail.

Exam points

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:26:55)

Year of decision: 1980. Often called the second Sunil Batra case. Theme: prisoners' rights, dignity and letter petitions.

Facts

• Sunil Batra was a prisoner in Tihar Jail.
• He wrote a letter to a Supreme Court judge complaining that another prisoner had been brutally assaulted by a prison official.
• The Court treated the letter as a petition and examined the conditions and treatment of prisoners.

Issue

Does a person lose all fundamental rights after entering prison?

Judgment (held)

• A person does not lose every fundamental right by entering prison.
• Lawful imprisonment restricts freedom of movement, but it does not give jail officials permission to torture prisoners or treat them without dignity.
• Article 21 (life and personal liberty) remains relevant to prisoners. Prison authorities must act within the law, and serious abuse can be challenged through constitutional remedies.

Significance and limits of letter petitions

• Courts need to hear complaints from people who cannot easily reach legal assistance. Prisoners may be isolated or frightened; allowing a genuine letter to begin constitutional examination can help prevent abuse.
• Not every letter is automatically a court case. Courts decide whether the information reveals a matter that properly calls for judicial action. The special approach was used to protect access to justice.

Exam points

Nilabati Behera v. State of Odisha

▶ Watch this part of the lecture (1:29:12)

Year of decision: 1993. Theme: compensation for custodial death as a public law remedy.

Facts

• Nilabati was the mother of Suman Behera.
• Police took Suman into custody during a theft investigation.
• The next day, his body was found near a railway track with several injuries.
• The State claimed that he had escaped custody.
• The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that he died because of injuries inflicted while in police custody.
• His mother sought justice through constitutional proceedings.

Issue

If a person dies after being taken into police custody, can the State be ordered to compensate the family for violating the right to life?

Judgment (held)

• The Court considered the responsibility of the State when government officials violate the right to life under Article 21.
• It confirmed that compensation can be awarded as a public law remedy for an established violation of fundamental rights.
• The State cannot simply avoid constitutional responsibility by pointing to ordinary defences that might arise in a private lawsuit. Courts must be able to grant effective relief for serious rights violations.

Public law compensation	Private damages / criminal proceedings
Relief for a constitutional wrong (violation of fundamental rights) against the State.	Private damages: an ordinary civil claim, available where the law permits.
The State cannot escape by raising ordinary private-law defences.	Criminal proceedings determine criminal responsibility.

Compensation is not a substitute for criminal investigation or prosecution where crimes may have been committed. Different legal proceedings have different purposes: one addresses constitutional harm, another may determine criminal responsibility. They can exist alongside one another.

Significance

This case built on the earlier decision in Rudul Sah, where compensation was ordered for unlawful detention after acquittal. Together, they show how Article 32 and Article 21 can provide practical remedies.

Exam points