Article 14, Constitution

Principles of Natural Justice and Constitution of India

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law for all citizens. It prohibits any form of discrimination and forbids both discriminatory laws and administrative…

8 min read 9 Sep 2026

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

Administrative Actions Meaning Nature, Scope and Significance

Administrative actions refer to actions taken under administrative law, which deals with the powers and duties of government authorities. These actions are legal measures related to public administrative bodies, aimed a…

9 min read 9 Sep 2026

Administrative Law One Shot

Administrative law is "the law relating to the administration. It determines the organization, powers, and duties of administrative authorities.

61 min read 9 Sep 2026

Audi Alteram Partem in Administrative Law

Ensuring Fairness and Justice in Legal and Administrative Proceedings

8 min read 9 Sep 2026

B.N.S.S.

The objectives of criminal procedure are crucial for the effective functioning of the criminal justice system.

201 min read 9 Sep 2026

Constitution I One Shot

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

69 min read 9 Sep 2026

Constitution II One Shot

A child born in India before July 1, 1987, automatically acquired Indian citizenship regardless of their parents' nationality.

57 min read 9 Sep 2026

Constitutional Law II: Complete Notes

Constitutional Law II deals with civil liberties. It is studied in eight units, from the question of who is a citizen of India to how the Constitution enforces the rights it gives. These rights are at work in ordinary life: when a person speaks his mind online, prays in his own way, or is stopped b…

130 min read 16 Oct 2026

Excessive Delegation Under Administrative Law

The concept of excessive delegation is important in administrative law because it prevents the uncontrolled transfer of legislative power. It sets boundaries on the authority that administrative bodies can have, ensurin…

7 min read 9 Sep 2026

Family law - I One Shot

Personal laws refer to laws that are specific to a particular religion and govern matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and family relationships. These laws are deeply rooted in the traditions, customs…

142 min read 9 Sep 2026

Family law II One Shot

Illustration: A Hindu male dies intestate, leaving behind a widow, a son, and a daughter. The property will be divided into three equal parts: one-third each for the widow, the son, and the daughter.

91 min read 9 Sep 2026

Human Rights Law: Complete Notes

About this subject ▶ Watch this part of the lecture (00:00) Human Rights Law runs, across six units, from what makes a right a human right to newer issues such as artificial intelligence, corruption, business power, and the rights of transgender persons and prisoners. Human rights are engaged whene…

122 min read 16 Oct 2026

Landmark Cases of Family law - I

Fact: Appellant alleged bigamy under Sec. 494, IPC, as per Hindu customs, against her tribal husband. Appellant claimed tribal custom mandates monogamy.

21 min read 9 Sep 2026

Position Relating to Treaties under the Indian Constitution

The power to make treaties or enter into binding agreements with other nations involves both international and national (or internal) considerations. When it comes to the internal aspects of treaties or agreements, any…

7 min read 9 Sep 2026

Restitution of Conjugal Rights

About this topic ▶ Watch this part of the lecture (0:00) Restitution of conjugal rights is the remedy by which one spouse asks the court for an order sending the other spouse back home. It is found in Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . Example Three files on a Family Court judge's desk, ea…

23 min read 16 Oct 2026

What Is Rule of Law in Administrative Law?

The term "Rule of Law" comes from the French expression 'La Principe de Legalite,' meaning the principle of legality. It refers to a government system based on law and justice, in contrast to a dictatorship.

14 min read 9 Sep 2026

What is the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation was developed to ensure that government actions are held accountable. Often, it is challenging to seek relief from government policies and laws, so this doctrine was created to off…

5 min read 9 Sep 2026

During the 1975 Emergency, a five-judge bench held by a 4:1 majority that once the enforcement of Article 21 was suspended by a Presidential order under Article 359(1), no person had locus standi to file a habeas corpus petition under Article 226, even against an illegal detention. Justice H. R. Khanna's lone dissent, which said that the right to life and liberty does not come from the Constitution alone, is celebrated as the moral high point of the judiciary. The judgment was later answered by the Forty-fourth Amendment (1978) and expressly overruled in K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).

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.

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.

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.

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 Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020), the Supreme Court interpreted Article 233. It held that people already in judicial service, or with mixed experience as advocate and judge, cannot apply for the 25% direct recruitment (Bar) quota for District Judges. That quota is only for practising advocates with at least seven years of practice. Students must also know that a five-judge Constitution Bench expressly overruled this decision on 9 October 2025 in Rejanish K. V. v. K. Deepa.

First, let us understand the basic meaning. Article 245 of the Constitution deals with how far laws made by Parliament and State legislatures can extend. GVK Industries Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer (2011) answers a precise question: can Parliament make laws about things that happen outside the terri…

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that Parliament can make laws on matters outside India (extra-territorial aspects or causes) only if they have a real, not imaginary or fanciful, nexus with India, meaning some impact on or connection with India or the interest, welfare or security of its people. Parliament cannot make a law only for a foreign territory that has nothing to do with India. Such a law would be ultra vires and void. The case matters because it explains the limits of Parliament's power under Article 245 and stresses that the Indian Parliament is not an unlimited sovereign.

A unanimous nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati decision) are not fully immune. They can be tested against the basic structure, including the 'golden triangle' of Articles 14, 19 and 21. The case matters because it holds that judicial review is part of the basic structure and that the Ninth Schedule is not a safe haven for unconstitutional laws.

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, held that barring women aged 10 to 50 from the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional. It struck down Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules and held that the right to worship under Article 25(1) belongs equally to women. The case matters because it uses constitutional morality and the essential religious practices test to resolve the clash between faith and gender equality, and its larger questions are now pending before a nine-judge bench.

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.

In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously struck down Section 497 of the IPC, which made adultery a crime. It also struck down Section 198 of the CrPC insofar as it applied to adultery. The Court held that the law treated a wife as her husband's property and violated Articles 14, 15 and 21, so adultery is now only a civil wrong and a ground for divorce, not a crime.

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.

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."…

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.

The Supreme Court held that the 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable, not merely any procedure laid down by a law. It also held that Articles 14, 19 and 21 must be read together, and that natural justice (audi alteram partem) is implied in the Passports Act, 1967. This judgment rejected the narrow A. K. Gopalan approach and opened the way for the wide expansion of Article 21.

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.

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 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.

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.

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…

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 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 Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in its entirety. It held that the section violated freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), was vague and overbroad, and could not be saved under Article 19(2). The Court upheld the website-blocking power in Section 69A and read down Section 79, which is why the case is called the landmark internet freedom judgment.

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.

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…

In Waman Rao v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld Articles 31A and 31B and the unamended Article 31C. It held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) are safe from the basic structure test, but laws added after that date can be challenged if they damage the basic structure. This cut-off line later shaped I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) and is central to the law on Parliament's amending power.

In Zee Telefilms v. Union of India (2005), 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. However, because B.C.C.I. performs public functions, High Courts can issue writs against it under Article 226. The case is a key part of the Article 12 line of cases that follows Pradeep Kumar Biswas.

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.

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…