Article 32, 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

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

B.N.S.S. Case Law

Introduction : This case addresses whether requiring an accused person to undergo medical tests, such as providing blood and semen samples, violates the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article…

255 min read 9 Sep 2026

Code of Civil Procedure One Shot

The first Code of Civil Procedure was enacted in 1859 during British rule for courts outside Presidency towns. Revised codes were introduced in 1877 and 1882. The current CPC, 1908, consolidated earlier laws and has bee…

113 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

Relationship Between Constitutional Law and Administrative Law

Constitutional law and administrative law are closely connected. While administrative law focuses on the organization, powers, functions, and duties of administrative authorities, constitutional law addresses the genera…

7 min read 9 Sep 2026

Remedies against Administrative Action

Remedies against Administrative Action can be Constitutional, Statutory, or Equitable.

12 min read 9 Sep 2026

Statutory Authority as a Defence to Torts

Statutory authority refers to the legal power derived directly from the legislature. When someone acts under statutory authority and causes harm to another, no legal action can be taken against them, as the act is not c…

4 min read 9 Sep 2026

The Connection Between Constitutional Law and Administrative Law

Constitutional law and administrative law are closely connected. While administrative law focuses on the organization, powers, functions, and duties of administrative authorities, constitutional law addresses the genera…

13 min read 9 Sep 2026

What is a Writ and How to File Writ Petitions

Understanding the importance of writs in enforcing Fundamental Rights in India.

20 min read 9 Sep 2026

In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court upheld the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, except Section 14, and held Gopalan's detention legal. The majority treated each fundamental right as a separate compartment and read 'procedure established by law' as any law made by the legislature, not 'due process'. Justice Fazl Ali's dissent was later adopted in R.C. Cooper (1970) and Maneka Gandhi (1978), so the case is the starting point for understanding how Article 21 developed.

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.

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.

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.

The Supreme Court held that repeatedly re-promulgating the same ordinance, without ever placing it before the legislature, is unconstitutional. The Court called it a fraud on the Constitution and a colourable exercise of power. The case limits the ordinance power under Article 213 (and Article 123) to genuine emergencies, so that the executive cannot replace the legislature as the law-maker.

In I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), an eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court held by six to five that Parliament cannot take away or curtail fundamental rights, because a constitutional amendment is also 'law' under Article 13(2). It overruled Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh. To avoid legal chaos, it applied the doctrine of prospective overruling for the first time in India, so the past amendments and the challenged land reform Acts stayed valid.

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.

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.

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.

In this case the Supreme Court held that employing children in factories or hazardous industries, such as the matchstick and fireworks units of Sivakasi, violates their fundamental right under Article 24. The Court gave detailed, step-by-step directions for withdrawing such children from work and for their rehabilitation and education. These included an employer compensation of Rs. 20,000 per child and a State contribution of Rs. 5,000, both paid into a Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund. The case matters because it treated child labour as a question of fundamental rights, not merely of policy.

The Supreme Court struck down a Mysore Government Order that reserved 68% of seats in engineering and medical colleges, calling it a fraud on Article 15(4). It held that caste cannot be the sole test of backwardness and that reservation should broadly be less than fifty percent. This was the first case to lay down the fifty percent principle later reaffirmed in Indra Sawhney.

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.

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.

The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is part of life and personal liberty under Article 21, and that telephone conversations are protected by privacy and by free speech under Article 19(1)(a). It did not strike down Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, but laid down binding interim guidelines to stop arbitrary phone tapping. These guidelines later shaped the Indian Telegraph Rules (Rule 419A) and India's surveillance law.

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.

The Supreme Court held that the executive power of a State is residuary and coextensive with the legislative power, so the government can act, including carrying on a trade like publishing school textbooks, without a specific law, as long as it does not violate anyone's fundamental rights or any law. The publishers' petition under Article 32 failed because they had no fundamental right to have their books prescribed in schools. The case is a leading authority on the nature of executive power and on separation of powers 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…

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.

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.

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 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. 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."…

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…