Landmark judgments, explained

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. India's Constitution already lists specific reasons a person cannot become a Member of Parliament under Article 102 . But what happens when a serious social problem — people facing serious criminal charges contesting and winning elections, then going on t…

First, let us understand the basic meaning. Normally, a Legislative Assembly is elected, meets, and functions for up to five years unless dissolved earlier. Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. vs. Union of India (2006) asks a startling question: can an assembly be dissolved before it has even held its first me…

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…

This case examines consideration in contract law under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 . It addresses whether a promise to contribute to a public cause without any binding obligation is enforceable.

These cases reaffirm the protection granted to minors in contract law , emphasizing that minors cannot be held liable for breach of contract and that a contractual claim cannot be converted into a tort claim to impose liability on minors.

Case Summary: Nash v. Inman (1908) 2 KB 1 Case Topic: Necessaries for Minors Facts of the Case A tailor ( plaintiff ) supplied 13 waistcoats and other clothing to an undergraduate student ( defendant ), who was a minor at the time. The student refused to pay for the goods, arguing that he was not l…

This case deals with coercion under Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 , specifically examining whether a threat of criminal prosecution amounts to coercion, thereby rendering a contract void.

Collins v. Godefroy (1831) – Explained in Simple Terms Topic: Consideration & Pre-existing Duty What Happened? Godefroy sued a third party and got a court subpoena (order) for Collins to appear as a witness . Later, Godefroy offered Collins six guineas (a type of money) if he attended. Collins did…