Constitutional Law II case laws

In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that, because Parliament had not made a law under Article 324(2) for more than seventy years, the Court could fill this constitutional vacuum to protect the independence of the Election Commission. It directed that, until Parliament makes a law, the President will appoint the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners on the advice of a committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. The case matters because it links free and fair elections, which are part of the basic structure, with an independent Election Commission.

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Ninety-third Constitutional Amendment, which inserted Article 15(5), and the Central Educational Institutions Reservation in Admission Act, 2006, including 27% O.B.C. reservation in central institutions such as I.I.T.s, I.I.M.s and central universities. It held that the creamy layer must be excluded from O.B.C. reservation, but not from S.C./S.T. (as the law stood then). It also held that excluding minority institutions does not violate Article 14. The case is a key decision on balancing reservation in higher education with merit, equality and the basic structure.

A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held, by a majority of five to two, that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (C.S.I.R.) is "State" under Article 12 because the government controls it deeply and pervasively in financial, functional and administrative matters. The Court overruled the earlier Sabhajit Tewary decision. The case gave the leading test for deciding when a body counts as "other authority" under Article 12, and the test looks at substance, not form.

In S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that 'consultation' with the judiciary in appointing judges does not mean 'concurrence'. Consultation is mandatory and must be full and effective, but the final decision rests with the President acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The case also widened locus standi, laying a foundation for public interest litigation, and linked the right to know to Article 19(1)(a). It was later overruled by the Second Judges Case of 1993.

The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to carry on a profession, trade or business through the internet are protected under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), and can be restricted only within Article 19(2) and 19(6). It ruled that internet suspension can only be temporary, that restriction orders must be published, that Section 144 CrPC cannot be used to suppress legitimate dissent, and that all restrictions must pass the proportionality test. It is the leading case on digital rights and internet shutdowns in India.

First, let us understand the basic meaning. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution gives every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression . But does that right stop at merely holding or voicing an opinion, or does it also protect your ability to share and circulate that opinion with others…

First, let us understand the basic meaning. T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) laid down broad principles on the rights of private educational institutions — but because those principles were stated broadly, different High Courts interpreted them differently, and petitions piled up…

First, let us understand the basic meaning. Before 1997, India had no specific law defining or prohibiting sexual harassment at the workplace. Vishaka & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) answers a foundational question: when Parliament has made no law on a subject, can the Supreme Court still step…

First, let us understand the basic meaning. Article 13(2) of the Constitution says: the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights, and any law that does so is void. Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India (1951) asked one sharp question: does the word "law" i…

First, let us understand the basic meaning. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution gives every citizen the right to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business — and running an educational institution counts as exercising this right. But no right in the Constitution is absol…

First, let us understand the basic meaning. The Basic Structure Doctrine is a rule created by the Supreme Court of India which says: Parliament can amend (change) almost any part of the Constitution, but it cannot change the parts that form the Constitution's core identity — its "basic structure."…