Constitutional Law II case laws

In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a 3:2 majority, set aside instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat). Two judges held it unconstitutional as manifestly arbitrary under Article 14, and a third held it was not part of Islamic law. The case is a landmark for the dignity and equality of Muslim women.

The Supreme Court struck down a Mysore Government Order that reserved 68% of seats in engineering and medical colleges, calling it a fraud on Article 15(4). It held that caste cannot be the sole test of backwardness and that reservation should broadly be less than fifty percent. This was the first case to lay down the fifty percent principle later reaffirmed in Indra Sawhney.

In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to die with dignity is part of the right to life under Article 21. It made passive euthanasia legal subject to safeguards, kept active euthanasia illegal, and recognised the living will (advance medical directive) as legally enforceable. It matters because it carried Article 21 from the narrow approach of A. K. Gopalan all the way to dignity at the end of life.

The Supreme Court struck down clause 4 of Article 329A, inserted by the Thirty-ninth Amendment during the Emergency, because it violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The amendment had declared Indira Gandhi's election valid regardless of any court decision. The Court upheld the amended election laws, held that the basic structure doctrine applies to constitutional amendments and not to ordinary laws, and on that basis found her election valid. It is remembered as the first major practical application of the basic structure doctrine after Kesavananda Bharati.

The Supreme Court held that three schoolchildren of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith, who stood respectfully during the National Anthem but did not sing it because of their sincere religious belief, could not be expelled. Forcing them to sing violated their freedom of conscience and religion under Article 25(1) and their freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to remain silent, under Article 19(1)(a). The case is a leading authority on freedom of religion, tolerance and the rule that executive instructions cannot restrict fundamental rights.

A unanimous nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court declared in 2017 that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, mainly as an intrinsic part of life and personal liberty under Article 21. It overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) to the extent they held otherwise. It also laid down that the State can restrict privacy only through a three-fold test of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality. The case became the foundation for the entire debate on Aadhaar and data protection.

In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court upheld the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, except Section 14, and held Gopalan's detention legal. The majority treated each fundamental right as a separate compartment and read 'procedure established by law' as any law made by the legislature, not 'due process'. Justice Fazl Ali's dissent was later adopted in R.C. Cooper (1970) and Maneka Gandhi (1978), so the case is the starting point for understanding how Article 21 developed.

A five-judge Constitution Bench held that Delhi has a sui generis (unique) status under Article 239AA. It is neither a full State nor an ordinary Union Territory, and the Lieutenant Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the elected Council of Ministers, except on public order, police and land. The case matters because it strengthened representative government in Delhi and set out collaborative federalism and constitutional morality as guiding principles for Centre–LG–elected government relations.

A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the President and the Governor are constitutional heads who act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Where the Constitution speaks of their 'satisfaction', it means the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers, not their personal satisfaction. The Court overruled Sardari Lal and set aside the termination of two probationer judges, holding that a termination which is in substance a punishment attracts the protection of Article 311(2).

Minerva Mills (1980) struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the Forty-second Amendment. The Court held that a limited amending power, judicial review, and the balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV) are all part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It is the most important basic structure case after Kesavananda Bharati, and it is the source of the famous 'golden triangle' of Articles 14, 19 and 21.

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held, by a majority of four to one, that statutory corporations such as O.N.G.C., L.I.C. and the Industrial Finance Corporation are 'State' under Article 12. Regulations made under their Acts have the force of law, so an employee removed in breach of them can get a declaration that he continues in service, not just damages. The case matters because it brought public sector corporations under constitutional accountability, and Justice Mathew's concurring opinion laid the seed of the later 'instrumentality' test.

The Supreme Court upheld the Patna High Court's view that a person in jail or in lawful police custody (other than preventive detention) cannot vote under Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Such a person is therefore not an 'elector' and cannot contest elections either. The case matters because Parliament reversed the ruling within about three months through the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013, which had retrospective effect. It is a key case on the criminalisation of politics and on Parliament's power to remove the basis of a judgment.