In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992), the Supreme Court held that the right to education is an integral part of the right to life with dignity under Article 21. It declared the capitation fee system unconstitutional as arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14. It also struck down the parts of a 1989 Karnataka notification that let private medical colleges charge Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 60,000 a year. The case is the starting point of the right to education in Indian constitutional law.
In Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court held that forcing an accused to undergo narco-analysis, polygraph or brain mapping (BEAP) tests is unconstitutional. Such compulsion violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the rights to personal liberty, privacy and dignity under Article 21. The case strikes a balance between effective criminal investigation and human rights, and it later became one foundation of the right to privacy recognised in Puttaswamy (2017).
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that Article 75(1) of the Constitution does not contain any implied bar against appointing a person facing criminal charges as a minister. Until there is a conviction, the courts cannot add such a disqualification, because that is Parliament's job. However, the Court expressed a strong constitutional expectation that the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers will not appoint people facing charges of heinous crimes or corruption. The case matters because it shows judicial restraint, the idea of constitutional silence, and the Prime Minister's role as a constitutional trustee.
In this 2014 case, the Supreme Court legally recognised transgender persons as a 'third gender'. It held that every person can decide their own gender identity (self-identification) without any medical test or surgery. It also held that this right is protected under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21. The case is a landmark because it gave transgender persons an independent legal identity for the first time and directed the Centre and the States to protect their rights.
The Supreme Court held that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, a statutory body created under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, is 'State' under Article 12. It held that 'other authorities' must be read broadly and not limited by the rule of ejusdem generis, so fundamental rights and writs apply against such bodies. The case started the wide reading of Article 12 that later courts built on.
In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964. It held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights in Part III, and that a constitutional amendment is not 'law' under Article 13(2). The case matters because the separate opinions of Justice Hidayatullah and Justice Mudholkar first raised doubts about unlimited amending power, and Justice Mudholkar's idea of 'basic features' is treated as the seed of the basic structure doctrine.
In 1998, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held by a 3:2 majority that M.P.s and M.L.A.s have immunity under Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) for a speech or vote given in the House, even if they took a bribe for that vote. The Court also held that an M.P. is a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 4 March 2024, a unanimous seven-judge bench in Sita Soren v. Union of India overruled this decision and held that bribery gets no protection from parliamentary privilege.
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. It read the Act so that a divorced Muslim woman's rights stay safe: the husband must make a reasonable and fair provision for her future within the iddat period, and that provision continues to benefit her after iddat until she remarries. The case matters because it saved the Act through constitutional interpretation while keeping alive the basic purpose of the Shah Bano judgment.
In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Seventy-seventh, Eighty-first, Eighty-second and Eighty-fifth Constitutional Amendments on reservation in promotion for S.C. and S.T. employees. It held that these are only enabling provisions, and that a State must show compelling reasons through quantifiable data before granting such reservation. The case shaped the law on reservation in promotions and strengthened the basic structure doctrine.
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held, by a 3:2 majority, that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (B.C.C.I.) is not a 'State' under Article 12, so a writ petition under Article 32 is not maintainable against it. The Court also accepted that B.C.C.I. performs public functions, so High Courts can still issue writs against it under Article 226. The case is a key part of the Article 12 line of cases after Pradeep Kumar Biswas.
In this 1960 advisory opinion on a Presidential reference under Article 143(1), the Supreme Court held that dividing Berubari Union and exchanging enclaves under the Nehru-Noon Agreement was a cession of Indian territory. Such a cession cannot be done by an executive agreement or by an ordinary law under Article 3. It needs a constitutional amendment under Article 368 that amends Article 1 and the First Schedule by special majority. The case matters because it fixed the constitutional route for giving away territory, which was later followed in the Ninth Amendment (1960) and the Hundredth Amendment (2015).
A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a 6:3 majority, upheld 27% reservation for O.B.C.s in central government jobs. It struck down the 10% reservation based only on economic criteria. It laid down the core rules of Indian reservation law: caste can be a class, the creamy layer must be excluded, reservation should generally not exceed 50%, sub-classification is allowed, and there is no reservation in promotion. These rules still form the backbone of reservation law.
