Constitution of India – Landmark Cases

Article 21

Right to life is limited to procedure established by law (law made by legislature).

This case was about preventive detention (keeping a person in jail without trial for safety reasons). The petitioner argued that his personal liberty was violated. The Supreme Court held that as long as there is a valid law, detention is allowed. The Court took a narrow view of fundamental rights. It said each right is separate and cannot be combined. It did not consider fairness of the law deeply. This case later became less important after Maneka Gandhi case.

Article 21
Article 14
Article 19

Procedure must be fair, just and reasonable (not arbitrary or unfair).

Maneka Gandhi’s passport was taken away without proper reason. She challenged this action. The Supreme Court expanded the meaning of Article 21. It said law must be fair, not just valid. It also connected Articles 14, 19 and 21 together. This means all rights must be read together. This case changed Indian constitutional law in a big way.

Article 368

Basic structure doctrine (Parliament cannot destroy basic features of Constitution).

This case challenged the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The Court held that Parliament can amend the Constitution. But it cannot change the basic structure (core features like democracy and rule of law). This case created the “basic structure doctrine”. It is one of the most important cases in Indian law.

Article 13
Article 368

Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.

The issue was whether Parliament can change fundamental rights. The Court said Parliament cannot amend them. It treated amendment as law under Article 13. This limited Parliament’s power. This view was later changed in Kesavananda Bharati case.

Article 368
Part III & IV

Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

This case challenged changes made by the 42nd Amendment. The Court said Parliament cannot destroy balance between rights and directive principles. Both are important. It also reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine. It limited the power of Parliament.

Article 329A

Free and fair elections are part of basic structure.

This case involved election dispute of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Parliament tried to make her election valid by law. The Court struck down this law. It said free and fair elections are part of basic structure. Government cannot misuse power to stay in office.

Article 356

Judicial review of President’s Rule (court can check misuse of power).

This case dealt with dismissal of state governments. The Court said President’s Rule can be reviewed by courts. It cannot be used for political reasons. Federalism (division of power between Centre and State) is part of basic structure.

Article 15

No caste-based discrimination in education.

This case challenged reservation based on caste in education. The Court struck down the order. It said it violates Article 15. This led to First Constitutional Amendment. It allowed special provisions for backward classes later.

Article 16

Reservation allowed but with limit (50% cap rule).

This case dealt with Mandal Commission reservations. The Court allowed reservation for backward classes. But it fixed a limit of 50%. It also introduced concept of “creamy layer” (rich people excluded).

Article 12

Test to decide what is “State”.

This case defined when a body is considered “State”. If government controls it, it can be State. This helps apply fundamental rights.

Article 12

Broader test for State control.

This case expanded the meaning of State. It said deep and complete control by government is important. This helps include more bodies under Article 12.

Article 12

Private bodies are not always State.

The Court held that BCCI is not State. Even if it has power, it may not be under government control.

Article 19
Article 30

Rights of minorities to run institutions.

This case dealt with education rights of minorities. The Court said minorities can run their own institutions. But reasonable rules can be applied.

Article 19
Article 30

No forced reservation in private institutions.

The Court held that private unaided institutions cannot be forced to give reservation. It protects autonomy (freedom) of institutions.

Article 30

Minority rights in education.

The Court protected minority institutions from excessive government control. It ensured freedom in management.

Article 368

Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.

This case upheld First Amendment. It said amendment is not “law” under Article 13. So Parliament can amend rights.

Article 368

Amendment power includes Fundamental Rights.

This case followed Shankari Prasad. It allowed Parliament to amend rights. But some judges raised doubts.

Article 31B

Laws in Ninth Schedule can be reviewed if they violate basic structure.

The Court held that even protected laws can be checked. If they violate basic structure, they are invalid.

Article 19

Only citizens get fundamental rights.

The Court said companies are not citizens. So they cannot claim some rights under Article 19.

Article 14

Equality in pension rules.

The Court held that pension rules must be fair. It cannot treat similar people differently.

Article 14

No arbitrary government action.

The Court said government must act fairly in contracts. No unfair decisions allowed.

Article 21

Right to livelihood (means of earning) is part of life.

The Court expanded Article 21. It included right to work and dignity.