Part-1 https://www.lawsho.com/top-10-landmark-cases-in-india-every-law-student-must-know-part-1/
6. Mehta v. Union of India (1986) – The Oleum Gas Leak Case
The MC Mehta case is one of the most significant judgments in Indian environmental law, as it established the principle of Absolute Liability for industries handling hazardous substances. This case arose from the Oleum gas leak in Delhi in 1985, which occurred soon after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984). The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case strengthened environmental protection laws and corporate responsibility, ensuring that industries dealing with hazardous substances are fully liable for any harm caused, without exceptions.
Background and Legal Dispute
The case originated when Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Ltd., a chemical plant in Delhi, leaked toxic Oleum gas, affecting several people and causing one reported death. This disaster raised serious concerns about industrial safety and environmental regulations in India. MC Mehta, a public interest lawyer, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking the closure of hazardous industries operating in densely populated areas. He argued that the right to a clean and safe environment is a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life) and that industries handling hazardous substances must be held strictly accountable for any damage caused.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
The case was heard by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The petitioner, MC Mehta, argued that industries dealing with toxic substances must bear full responsibility for any harm caused to people and the environment, irrespective of negligence. He contended that the existing principle of Strict Liability (from the English case Rylands v. Fletcher, 1868) was insufficient, as it allowed industries to escape liability under certain exceptions.
The government and the chemical plant's defense argued that the gas leak was an accident and that the industry followed all necessary safety regulations. They also contended that the principles of Strict Liability should be applied, which would exempt them from liability in cases of Act of God or third-party actions.
Judgment and the Legal Doctrine
The Supreme Court rejected the principle of Strict Liability and introduced the new doctrine of Absolute Liability. Under this principle, any industry engaged in hazardous activities is fully liable for any damage caused, regardless of negligence, Act of God, or third-party interference. The Court held that when a company is involved in dangerous activities, it must bear complete responsibility for ensuring safety.
The Court also emphasized that Article 21 (Right to Life) includes the right to a clean and pollution-free environment. It ruled that victims of industrial disasters must be fully compensated and that industries must adopt the highest safety standards to prevent future accidents.
Impact and Significance
The ruling had far-reaching implications for environmental law and corporate liability in India. It led to the enactment of stronger environmental regulations, including the Environment Protection Act, 1986, which provided a legal framework for preventing industrial pollution. The judgment also influenced future cases, such as Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), where the Polluter Pays Principle was reinforced.
Additionally, the case established that industries cannot escape liability by claiming a lack of negligence. This ruling ensured that corporations handling hazardous substances must prioritize public safety and adopt stringent environmental protection measures.
Conclusion
The MC Mehta case redefined Indian industrial accountability. The Supreme Court prioritized public health and environmental safety over industrial interests by adopting absolute liability. Environmental law relies on this decision to uphold the constitutional right to a pollution-free environment and hold companies accountable.
7. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) – The Habeas Corpus Case
The ADM Jabalpur case, commonly known as the Habeas Corpus case, is one of the most controversial judgments in Indian legal history. The Supreme Court, in this case, ruled that during a state of emergency, the right to move the court for enforcement of fundamental rights, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, could be suspended. The ruling upheld absolute executive power, raising serious concerns about the potential misuse of emergency provisions and the weakening of democratic safeguards.
Background and Legal Dispute
The case arose during the Emergency period (1975-1977) declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, citing internal disturbances under Article 352 of the Constitution. During this period, civil liberties were curtailed, political opponents were arrested, and fundamental rights were suspended under Article 359. Several habeas corpus petitions were filed in various High Courts, challenging the arbitrary detention of political activists and journalists without trial. The High Courts ruled in favor of the detainees, holding that the right to personal liberty cannot be suspended even during an emergency. The Union of India appealed against these decisions, leading to a landmark hearing before the Supreme Court.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
A five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court heard the case. The government argued that during an emergency, fundamental rights, including the right to life and liberty, remain suspended and that courts have no jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus petitions. It justified mass detentions as necessary to maintain national security and stability. The petitioners, including prominent political leaders, argued that even in times of emergency, basic human rights should be protected, as no authority should have unchecked power over life and liberty.
Judgment and the Legal Doctrine
In a 4:1 majority verdict, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, holding that no person has the right to approach the court for enforcement of fundamental rights during an emergency. The judgment effectively gave the executive absolute power, allowing detentions without legal recourse. Justice H.R. Khanna, the lone dissenting judge, strongly opposed the majority ruling, stating that even during an emergency, the state cannot take away an individual’s right to life arbitrarily. His dissent later became a guiding principle for future constitutional cases.
Impact and Significance
The judgment was widely criticized as a dark moment in Indian democracy, as it allowed gross violations of human rights under the shield of emergency powers. Following the end of the emergency in 1977, the newly elected government introduced the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978), ensuring that Article 21 and Article 20 (protection against retrospective criminal laws) cannot be suspended even during an emergency. In 2017, the Supreme Court in the Right to Privacy judgment (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India) expressly overruled the ADM Jabalpur verdict, acknowledging that it was a grave mistake.
Conclusion
The ADM Jabalpur case is a stark reminder of how unchecked executive power can endanger democracy and civil liberties. The ruling exposed the vulnerabilities of fundamental rights in times of crisis and emphasized the need for a strong judiciary to protect constitutional values. Though the verdict was later overturned, its legacy continues to serve as a warning against the dangers of authoritarian rule.
8. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – Decriminalization of Homosexuality (Section 377 IPC Case)
The Navtej Singh Johar case was a landmark ruling in India’s legal and social history, as it decriminalized consensual same-sex relationships, striking down a colonial-era provision of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The Supreme Court recognized that criminalizing homosexuality violated the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and upheld the principles of equality, dignity, and personal autonomy.
Background and Legal Dispute
Section 377 IPC was introduced by the British in 1860, criminalizing unnatural offenses, which included same-sex relationships. The provision was long used to persecute LGBTQ+ individuals, even though it was rarely enforced in recent times. In 2009, the Delhi High Court decriminalized consensual same-sex acts in Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT Delhi, holding that Section 377 violated fundamental rights. However, in 2013, the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation reversed the decision, reinstating Section 377 and stating that the LGBTQ+ community was a “minuscule minority” with no special rights. This decision led to widespread protests, culminating in a fresh challenge before the Supreme Court.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
A five-judge Constitutional Bench heard the case. The petitioners, led by Navtej Singh Johar, argued that Section 377 violated Articles 14 (Equality), 15 (Non-Discrimination), 19 (Freedom of Expression), and 21 (Right to Life and Dignity). They emphasized that sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of identity and that criminalization led to discrimination, violence, and mental health issues. The government did not oppose the petition, leaving the matter to the court’s wisdom. Some religious groups, however, defended Section 377, citing morality and traditional values.
Judgment and the Legal Doctrine
The Supreme Court unanimously struck down Section 377 in so far as it criminalized consensual sex between adults. The Court held that the right to privacy includes the right to sexual orientation, and no individual should be punished for expressing their identity. The judgment overruled Suresh Kumar Koushal (2013) and reaffirmed the principles of personal liberty and dignity.
Impact and Significance
This ruling was a historic victory for LGBTQ+ rights in India. It provided legal recognition and protection to millions, ensuring that same-sex relationships are no longer considered a crime. The judgment encouraged corporate inclusivity policies, pride movements, and broader discussions on same-sex marriage, adoption rights, and anti-discrimination laws.
Conclusion
The Navtej Singh Johar case was a milestone in the fight for equality and human rights. By striking down Section 377, the Supreme Court ensured that every individual has the right to love without fear of criminalization. It set a precedent for future legal reforms, ensuring greater protection for LGBTQ+ rights in India.
9. Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) – The Euthanasia Case
The Aruna Shanbaug case is a significant milestone in Indian legal history that addressed the sensitive issue of euthanasia. This case led to the legalization of passive euthanasia in India under strict judicial guidelines. The Supreme Court, while rejecting the plea for active euthanasia for Aruna Shanbaug, recognized that the right to die with dignity is an essential component of Article 21 (Right to Life). The case laid the foundation for future legal developments in end-of-life care, balancing ethical concerns, medical advancements, and constitutional principles.
Background and Legal Dispute
Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse at KEM Hospital, Mumbai, who, in 1973, was brutally assaulted and strangled with a metal chain by a hospital worker. The attack caused severe brain damage due to a lack of oxygen, leaving her in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS) for over 37 years. She remained bedridden, completely dependent on the hospital staff for care, unable to move, speak, or express herself.
In 2009, journalist and author Pinki Virani filed a petition on her behalf, seeking permission for euthanasia, arguing that Aruna had no chance of recovery and was enduring a life of continuous suffering and indignity. The petition raised the question of whether a person in PVS should be allowed to die through the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, thus leading to an intense legal and ethical debate on euthanasia in India.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
The case was heard by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which had to determine whether euthanasia could be legally permitted under Indian law. The petitioner's argument was that prolonging Aruna’s life in such a state was inhumane and against the principles of dignity and human rights. They argued that passive euthanasia, involving the withdrawal of food and medical support, should be allowed in cases of irreversible coma or PVS.
The hospital staff at KEM Hospital, however, opposed the plea, stating that Aruna was not brain dead, showed some physical reflexes, and was being well cared for. They argued that she had developed a bond with the caregivers and was not in a state of unbearable suffering. The government also opposed euthanasia, arguing that there was no clear law governing the practice in India and that allowing it could lead to misuse and ethical complications.
Judgment and the Legal Doctrine
The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment, refused to grant active euthanasia, stating that deliberately ending a person's life through lethal substances is illegal in India. However, the Court took a progressive step by legalizing passive euthanasia in specific circumstances. It ruled that withdrawing life support or stopping medical treatment for terminally ill or permanently vegetative patients could be allowed under strict guidelines.
The Court established that passive euthanasia can only be permitted under the supervision of the judiciary, requiring the involvement of the High Court and a panel of medical experts to assess whether the patient’s condition is truly irreversible. While the Court rejected the petition for Aruna Shanbaug’s euthanasia, it paved the way for future cases where patients in a permanent vegetative state could be given the right to die with dignity.
Impact and Significance
The ruling in this case set a legal precedent for euthanasia in India. It led to greater legal clarity on end-of-life care, patient autonomy, and the ethical implications of prolonging life in medically futile situations. The judgment also laid the groundwork for the 2018 ruling in Common Cause v. Union of India, which recognized the concept of living wills, allowing terminally ill individuals to pre-declare their wish to refuse life support in case of irreversible illness.
Apart from its legal impact, the case sparked a nationwide debate on euthanasia, involving medical professionals, religious groups, and human rights activists. It helped shape future discussions on palliative care and the rights of terminally ill patients in India, ensuring that decisions regarding life and death are based on compassion and legal safeguards.
Conclusion
The Aruna Shanbaug case remains one of the most influential judgments on medical ethics and euthanasia in India. While the Court denied active euthanasia, it took a significant step in recognizing passive euthanasia, ensuring that terminally ill patients are not forced to endure a life of suffering without hope of recovery. This case established a balance between the right to life and the right to die with dignity, ensuring that medical and legal safeguards are in place to prevent misuse. The case has had a lasting impact on India’s healthcare and legal system, shaping policies related to end-of-life care, medical decision-making, and patient rights.
10. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – The Mandal Commission Case
The Indira Sawhney case is a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional law that examined the scope of reservations in public employment under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. This case primarily dealt with the validity of the Mandal Commission Report, which recommended 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case upheld OBC reservations while introducing key limitations such as the 50% ceiling on total reservations and the concept of the creamy layer to prevent the misuse of affirmative action policies.
Background and Legal Dispute
The Mandal Commission, established in 1979 under B.P. Mandal, was tasked with identifying socially and educationally backward classes in India and recommending measures for their upliftment. The Commission, after detailed research, recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions, in addition to the existing 22.5% reservation for SCs and STs, making the total reservation 49.5%.
In 1990, Prime Minister V.P. Singh implemented the Mandal Commission’s recommendations, leading to nationwide protests, strikes, and self-immolations by students, particularly from upper-caste communities. The decision was heavily criticized for favoring caste-based reservations over merit-based opportunities. Several petitions were filed against the government’s decision, leading to the Supreme Court's intervention in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
A nine-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court heard the case, marking it as one of the most significant constitutional challenges in Indian history. The petitioners argued that reservations for OBCs beyond SCs and STs violated the principles of equality (Article 14) and meritocracy in public employment. They contended that caste should not be the sole criterion for determining backwardness and that economic status should be considered instead.
The government defended the policy, stating that affirmative action was necessary to ensure social justice and equal opportunities for backward classes. It argued that Article 16(4) expressly allows reservations for socially and educationally backward classes, and the policy was aimed at correcting historical discrimination.
Judgment and the Legal Doctrine
The Supreme Court, in a 6:3 majority ruling, upheld the 27% OBC reservation but introduced several key principles to regulate the system:
- 50% Ceiling on Reservations: The Court ruled that total reservations cannot exceed 50%, ensuring a balance between affirmative action and merit-based selections.
- Exclusion of the Creamy Layer: Wealthier and socially advanced members of the OBC category were excluded from reservation benefits to ensure that only the truly disadvantaged benefited.
- No Reservation in Promotions: The Court held that reservations would apply only in initial appointments and not in promotions.
- Identification of Backward Classes: The government must review and update the OBC list periodically to prevent misuse.
Impact and Significance
The ruling had a far-reaching impact on India’s reservation policy. It established the creamy layer concept, ensuring that well-off individuals within backward classes do not misuse the benefits meant for the truly disadvantaged. The 50% ceiling became a constitutional benchmark, preventing excessive reservations. However, later amendments and judgments, including the 102nd Constitutional Amendment and the 103rd Amendment (which introduced EWS reservations), revisited the 50% cap, leading to fresh debates on affirmative action policies.
The case also led to the formation of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC), which was tasked with identifying and monitoring OBC reservations.
Conclusion
The Indira Sawhney case remains one of the most defining judgments in Indian social justice jurisprudence. It struck a balance between affirmative action and meritocracy, ensuring social justice while preventing over-reliance on caste-based policies. By introducing the creamy layer concept and the 50% cap, the ruling helped shape India’s modern reservation framework, continuing to influence policy debates on caste, affirmative action, and equal opportunity in India today.
Question to practice
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Basic Structure Doctrine
Q1: What is the significance of the Kesavananda Bharati case?
A: This case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution by ensuring that its fundamental principles remain intact.
Q2: What was the verdict in the Kesavananda Bharati case?
A: The Supreme Court ruled (7:6 majority) that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Expansion of Article 21
Q3: Why did Maneka Gandhi file a petition in the Supreme Court?
A: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without any reason, violating her personal liberty under Article 21, prompting her to challenge the government’s action.
Q4: How did this case change the interpretation of Article 21?
A: The Supreme Court ruled that any procedure affecting personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable, expanding the scope of fundamental rights.
3. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) – Workplace Sexual Harassment Guidelines
Q5: What led to the filing of the Vishaka case?
A: The brutal gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, highlighted the lack of laws protecting women from workplace harassment, leading to a PIL by women’s rights groups.
Q6: What legal framework was introduced in this case?
A: The Supreme Court laid down the Vishaka Guidelines, mandating anti-sexual harassment committees in workplaces until formal legislation was passed.
4. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) – Maintenance Rights of Muslim Women
Q7: Why is the Shah Bano case important?
A: It upheld that Muslim women are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, ensuring financial security post-divorce despite personal laws.
Q8: What was the government's response to the verdict?
A: Due to political pressure, the Rajiv Gandhi government passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, limiting maintenance rights.
5. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) – The Triple Talaq Case
Q9: What was the main issue in the Shayara Bano case?
A: Shayara Bano challenged the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat), arguing that it was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated fundamental rights.
Q10: What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?
A: In a 3:2 majority verdict, the Supreme Court declared triple talaq unconstitutional, leading to its criminalization under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
6. MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986) – The Oleum Gas Leak Case
Q11: How did the MC Mehta case strengthen environmental law in India?
A: It introduced the Absolute Liability Principle, making industries fully liable for damages caused by hazardous activities, with no exceptions.
Q12: What impact did this judgment have on legislation?
A: The case led to the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, and other strict pollution control regulations in India.
7. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) – The Habeas Corpus Case
Q13: Why is the ADM Jabalpur case considered controversial?
A: The Supreme Court ruled that during an Emergency, citizens cannot seek enforcement of fundamental rights, granting unchecked power to the executive.
Q14: Was this ruling ever overturned?
A: Yes, in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court overruled ADM Jabalpur, admitting it was a mistake.
8. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – Decriminalization of Homosexuality (Section 377 IPC Case)
Q15: What was the impact of this case on LGBTQ+ rights in India?
A: The Supreme Court decriminalized consensual same-sex relationships, affirming dignity, equality, and personal autonomy for LGBTQ+ individuals.
Q16: How did this ruling change Section 377 IPC?
A: It struck down the criminalization of homosexuality, but non-consensual sexual acts and bestiality under Section 377 remained punishable.
9. Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) – The Euthanasia Case
Q17: What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Aruna Shanbaug’s case?
A: The court denied active euthanasia but legalized passive euthanasia, allowing withdrawal of life support under strict legal supervision.
Q18: What law did this case influence?
A: It paved the way for the 2018 ruling in Common Cause v. Union of India, which recognized living wills for terminally ill patients.
10. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – The Mandal Commission Case
Q19: What was the Supreme Court’s ruling on OBC reservations in Indira Sawhney’s case?
A: The Court upheld 27% OBC reservations but introduced the 50% cap on total reservations and excluded the creamy layer from benefits.
Q20: How did this case impact Indian reservation policies?
A: It shaped India’s modern reservation system, ensuring affirmative action while preventing excessive reservations.
