Introduction
Indian legal history has seen several landmark judgments that have shaped the Constitution, fundamental rights, and governance. These cases play a crucial role in defining the country's rule of law and justice.
In this article, we will discuss 10 landmark cases in India that every law student, advocate, and legal enthusiast should be aware of, and this article was in two parts. For the second part of this article, refer to this link https://www.lawsho.com/top-10-landmark-cases-in-india-every-law-student-must-know-2/
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine
The Kesavananda Bharati case is regarded as the most significant constitutional ruling in Indian history, as it laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine, which limits the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. This case fundamentally shaped India's legal framework by ensuring that no government, regardless of its majority, could alter the basic structure of the Constitution. It reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding democracy.
Background and Legal Dispute
The case originated when Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt, a religious institution in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which sought to impose restrictions on the management and ownership of land held by religious institutions. Bharati filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, arguing that the Act violated his fundamental rights under Articles 25 (Freedom of Religion), 26 (Management of Religious Affairs), 14 (Right to Equality), 19(1)(f) (Right to Property, now repealed), and 31 (Compulsory Acquisition of Property, also repealed).
The case went beyond just property rights. It raised a broader constitutional question regarding the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. At the heart of the dispute was whether Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, without any limitations. This issue became even more contentious due to the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which sought to give Parliament unrestricted power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
This case was heard by a historic 13-judge bench, making it the largest constitutional bench in India's judicial history. The main question before the Supreme Court was whether Parliament had absolute power to amend the Constitution or whether there were inherent limitations to this power.
The Union Government, led by Attorney General Niren De, argued that Parliament possessed unlimited authority to amend the Constitution, including the power to modify or even repeal fundamental rights. The government contended that since Parliament represents the will of the people, there should be no restrictions on its amending power.
On the other hand, Nani Palkhivala, representing Kesavananda Bharati and the petitioners, argued that Parliament cannot destroy or alter the Constitution’s fundamental framework. He maintained that there must be constitutional safeguards to prevent authoritarian rule. The petitioners also relied on the precedent set by Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), where the Supreme Court had ruled that fundamental rights cannot be amended by Parliament. However, this decision had been opposed by the government, leading to the introduction of the 24th Amendment, which nullified Golaknath's ruling.
Judgment and the Basic Structure Doctrine
In a narrow 7:6 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament does have the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. The Basic Structure Doctrine was thus formulated, placing restrictions on Parliament’s ability to make amendments that would damage the essential features of the Constitution.
The Court identified several essential features that constitute the basic structure of the Constitution, including
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Sovereign, democratic, and secular nature of the State
- Separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary
- Judicial review
- Rule of law
- Freedom and dignity of individuals
This doctrine ensured that any future constitutional amendments must respect these core principles, thereby preventing any ruling party from manipulating the Constitution to serve its political interests.
Impact and Significance
The Kesavananda Bharati ruling had far-reaching implications for India’s constitutional law and democracy. Although it overruled the Golaknath judgment, which had previously held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, it still placed significant restrictions on Parliament’s amending power. This decision played a crucial role in later cases, including Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), which questioned the legality of the Emergency period, and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), which reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine by holding that amendments destroying constitutional harmony were invalid.
By limiting Parliament’s power, the Supreme Court safeguarded India’s democratic framework and protected fundamental rights from potential authoritarian abuse. Without this ruling, any ruling government with a parliamentary majority could have rewritten the Constitution entirely, effectively dismantling democracy.
Conclusion
The Kesavananda Bharati case, which created the Basic Structure Doctrine to prevent arbitrary constitutional revisions, is India's most important constitutional case. The verdict upheld judicial authority, democratic ideals, and constitutional integrity by preserving essential principles. This verdict underpins India's constitutional doctrine, preserving democracy and fundamental rights for future generations.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Expansion of Article 21
The Maneka Gandhi case is a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional law that expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The Supreme Court ruled that any law restricting personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable, significantly strengthening the protection of fundamental rights.
Background and Legal Dispute
In 1977, Maneka Gandhi, a journalist and social activist, was issued a passport under the Passport Act, 1967. Shortly after, she received a notice from the Regional Passport Officer, directing her to surrender her passport in the “public interest” without providing any explanation. She filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that the arbitrary impounding of her passport violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
The case was heard by a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The government argued that the Passport Act allowed authorities to restrict travel in matters of national security and public interest. However, Maneka Gandhi contended that the denial of her right to travel without giving any reason was arbitrary, violating her personal liberty.
The Court also revisited the earlier ruling in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), which had interpreted Article 21 narrowly. Maneka Gandhi’s counsel argued that personal liberty must include procedural fairness, requiring laws to be reasonable, just, and non-arbitrary.
Judgment given by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Maneka Gandhi, stating that any procedure depriving personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. The Court overruled its previous interpretation in A.K. Gopalan and held that Articles 14 (Equality), 19 (Freedom of Speech and Movement), and 21 (Personal Liberty) must be read together. This meant that no law affecting personal liberty could violate equality and freedom of expression.
Impact and Significance
The ruling broadened the interpretation of Article 21, establishing the right to live with dignity. It also introduced due process principles, ensuring greater protection against arbitrary state actions. This case became the foundation for future judgments on privacy, legal aid, and protection against government overreach.
Conclusion
The Maneka Gandhi case transformed the interpretation of personal liberty in India. It reinforced that constitutional safeguards must always protect individual freedoms. By ensuring that personal liberty cannot be arbitrarily taken away, the Supreme Court strengthened judicial activism and upheld constitutional morality, making it one of the most significant rulings in Indian history.
3. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) – Workplace Sexual Harassment Guidelines
The Vishaka case is a landmark judgment that established the legal framework for addressing sexual harassment at the workplace in India. The Supreme Court recognized that sexual harassment violates fundamental rights, including the right to equality, dignity, and a safe working environment. This case set legal guidelines to protect women from harassment at their workplaces, filling a major legislative gap before a dedicated law was enacted.
Background and Legal Dispute
The case arose from the brutal gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, who was attacked while working to prevent child marriages as part of a government initiative. Despite her attempts to seek justice, the legal system failed her, and the accused were acquitted. This incident highlighted the lack of legal protection for women facing workplace harassment and violence. In response, a group of women’s rights organizations, under the name Vishaka, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court, arguing that the absence of laws addressing sexual harassment at work violated women’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
The petitioners argued that sexual harassment in the workplace creates an unsafe and discriminatory environment, violating the right to equality (Article 14), the right to work with dignity (Article 21), and the right to practice any profession without discrimination (Article 19). They emphasized that India had ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which mandates legal protection against workplace harassment. The government acknowledged the issue but contended that there was no specific legislation to govern such matters. The court was thus faced with the task of establishing legal standards to address this serious gap in Indian law.
Judgment and the Vishaka Guidelines
The Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment in the workplace is a violation of fundamental rights, and in the absence of a specific law, the court laid down detailed guidelines to prevent and redress workplace harassment. These guidelines, known as the Vishaka Guidelines, required all employers, both public and private, to take proactive measures to prevent sexual harassment. The guidelines mandated the establishment of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) in workplaces, awareness programs, and a safe environment for women.
Impact and Significance
This case was a significant step in protecting women's rights at the workplace and ensuring a harassment-free work environment. The Vishaka Guidelines became the first legal framework for addressing workplace harassment in India. The judgment influenced later legislation, leading to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, which made these guidelines legally binding. The ruling also strengthened the idea that workplace safety is a fundamental right under the Constitution.
Conclusion
In India's legal history, the Vishaka case gave women the first protection against workplace harassment. The ruling stressed gender equality and dignity as basic rights. By holding employers accountable for ensuring a secure workplace, the Supreme Court protected the rights and dignity of working women across India by preventing and combating sexual harassment.
4. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) – Maintenance Rights of Muslim Women
The Shah Bano case is a landmark judgment in Indian legal history that addressed the maintenance rights of Muslim women after divorce. The Supreme Court ruled that a Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, now Section 144 in BNSS, 2023, despite the provisions of Muslim personal law. The case became a significant milestone in gender justice and secularism, as it emphasized that constitutional rights take precedence over religious customs when it comes to protecting fundamental rights.
Background and Legal Dispute
Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim woman, was married to Mohd. Ahmed Khan, a wealthy lawyer, for over 43 years. In 1978, her husband unilaterally divorced her using triple talaq and refused to provide her financial support, arguing that Muslim personal law only mandates maintenance for the iddat period (three months post-divorce). Left without any source of income, Shah Bano filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC, which provides for maintenance to wives, children, and parents who are unable to support themselves. The case soon became a national issue, as it questioned whether secular law could override religious personal laws in matters of maintenance.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
The case was heard by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Shah Bano’s lawyers argued that a divorced woman has the right to maintenance under secular law, regardless of her religion. They contended that Muslim personal law, which limited maintenance to the iddat period, was discriminatory and violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Dignity). On the other hand, Ahmed Khan’s defense was based on the argument that Section 125 CrPC should not apply to Muslim women, as personal law already provided guidelines for maintenance. Religious organizations like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) supported this view, arguing that interference in personal laws would violate religious freedom under Article 25.
Judgment and the Legal Doctrine
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shah Bano, holding that Section 125 CrPC applies to all women, regardless of religion. The court emphasized that maintenance is a matter of social justice and not religion. It clarified that a Muslim husband’s responsibility does not end after the iddat period if his former wife is unable to sustain herself. The Court also criticized the discriminatory aspects of Muslim personal law and called for the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to ensure equal rights for all women, irrespective of religion.
Impact and Significance
This judgment was seen as a progressive step toward gender justice, ensuring that no woman is left destitute after divorce. However, it triggered political and religious debates. In response to pressure from conservative Muslim groups, the Rajiv Gandhi-led government passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which diluted the Supreme Court’s ruling by stating that a Muslim husband’s maintenance obligation ends after the iddat period, and further maintenance must come from her relatives or the Wakf Board. Despite this setback, in Daniel Latifi v. Union of India (2001), the Supreme Court reinterpreted the 1986 Act to ensure that Muslim women receive fair and reasonable maintenance beyond iddat, reaffirming the principles laid down in the Shah Bano case.
Conclusion
The Shah Bano case established that secular laws defend basic rights over personal laws, making it a watershed in Indian women's rights. Though the 1986 statute intended to overturn the verdict due to political outcry, later courts have upheld Muslim women's right to maintenance. The case brought about a significant shift in Indian legal history by bringing attention to female equality, legal reforms, and the need for a Uniform Civil Code.
5. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) – The Triple Talaq Case
The Shayara Bano case is one of the most significant judgments in India’s legal history, as it declared instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) unconstitutional. This practice, which allowed a Muslim manprimarily practiced by Sunni Muslims, particularly followers of the Hanafi school of thought, to instantly divorce his wife by saying "talaq" three times, was challenged on the grounds that it violated the fundamental rights of Muslim women. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case upheld gender justice and equality, reinforcing the idea that personal laws must comply with constitutional principles.
Background and Legal Dispute
Shayara Bano was married for 15 years when her husband divorced her using triple talaq in 2016, without any prior notice or discussion. She was left without any financial support and had no legal remedy to challenge the divorce under Muslim personal law. She filed a petition in the Supreme Court, arguing that triple talaq violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), 19 (Freedom of Expression), and 21 (Right to Life and Dignity).
This case questioned the constitutional validity of triple talaq and whether it could be protected under Article 25 (Freedom of Religion). Several other petitioners, including women’s rights organizations, joined the case, emphasizing that instant triple talaq was arbitrary and discriminatory. On the other hand, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) defended the practice, arguing that triple talaq was an integral part of Islamic law and could not be interfered with by the judiciary.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
The case was heard by a five-judge constitutional bench representing different faiths, highlighting the diverse perspectives on the issue. The central arguments were:
Shayara Bano and other petitioners argued that triple talaq was unconstitutional because it allowed men absolute power to end a marriage unilaterally, violating the fundamental rights of Muslim women. They contended that several Islamic countries had already banned the practice, proving that it was not an essential part of Islam. The Union government supported the petitioners, stating that gender justice and dignity must take precedence over religious practices.
The AIMPLB defended triple talaq, stating that the court had no authority to interfere in religious matters. They argued that since marriage under Muslim law is a contract, divorce should also be allowed without interference. They further claimed that judicial intervention in religious laws would set a dangerous precedent.
Judgment and the Legal Doctrine
In a 3:2 majority ruling, the Supreme Court declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional. The majority judgment, delivered by Justices Rohinton Nariman, U.U. Lalit, and Kurian Joseph, held that triple talaq was manifestly arbitrary and violated the fundamental rights of Muslim women. They emphasized that Article 14 (Right to Equality) prohibits arbitrary laws and that religious practices must conform to constitutional morality.
The two dissenting judges, Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer, argued that the legislature, not the judiciary, should decide the validity of triple talaq. However, the majority ruling prevailed, striking down the practice and paving the way for legal reforms.
Impact and Significance
This ruling was a major victory for Muslim women’s rights in India. It empowered women by ensuring that marriage and divorce laws cannot be used arbitrarily to oppress them. The judgment also strengthened the judiciary’s role in ensuring that religious practices do not violate fundamental rights. Following the ruling, Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which made instant triple talaq a criminal offense punishable by up to three years in prison.
Conclusion
The Shayara Bano case was a landmark decision that upheld gender equality, dignity, and justice for Muslim women. It reaffirmed that personal laws must align with constitutional values and cannot be used to justify gender discrimination. The ruling not only ended a centuries-old oppressive practice but also set a precedent for future reforms in personal laws, ensuring that women’s rights remain protected under India’s constitutional framework.
Part 2 - https://www.lawsho.com/top-10-landmark-cases-in-india-every-law-student-must-know-2/
