Article 105, Constitution

57 Constitutional Cases in Brief: Quick Notes

Issue: Can the government choose judges even when the Chief Justice disagrees?

48 min read 16 Oct 2026

57 Landmark Constitutional Cases: Complete Notes

About this topic ▶ Watch this part of the lecture (0:00) These notes cover the 57 most important cases of Indian Constitutional Law . They are the cases that keep coming up in LL.B. examinations, in judiciary examinations and in every serious discussion of constitutional law. Every case is studied…

411 min read 16 Oct 2026

Constitution I One Shot

Definition: Constitutionalism is a system that gives legitimacy to a democratic government.

69 min read 9 Sep 2026

In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992), a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a 3:2 majority, upheld the anti-defection law in the Tenth Schedule. It struck down only Paragraph 7, which barred courts completely, because that change needed ratification by the States and had not received it. The Court held that the Speaker acts as a tribunal when deciding disqualification, so the decision is open to limited judicial review. The case saved the anti-defection law and also made sure the Speaker's power is not absolute.

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.

After the 2005 cash for query sting operation, both Houses of Parliament expelled eleven M.P.s. A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held by a 4:1 majority that Parliament has the power under Article 105(3) to expel a member for serious misconduct, and upheld the expulsion. It also held that such privilege decisions are subject to judicial review for illegality, though not for mere procedural irregularity. The case is a landmark on the balance between parliamentary privilege and judicial review.