India has been a sovereign, socialist, democratic republic for 75 years. Our judicial system is one of the main reasons why Indian democracy has thrived over the last 75 years. Our judicial bodies have rendered a number of landmark decisions over the years. On this special occasion of Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav, let us remember a few landmark decisions:
Re-Berubari Case:
Radcliff granted India territory in West Bengal’s Jalpaiguri district known as Berubari, but sadly failed to include it in his printed map. As a result of Pakistan taking advantage of the situation and claiming Berubari, an argument between India and Pakistan arose. To address this issue, the Nehru-Noon Agreement was signed in 1958. It was agreed that India and Pakistan would divide the Berubari territory equally under this arrangement. However, the President decided to pursue the issue under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution and sought advice from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled that Article 3 of the Indian Constitution forbids the parliament from transferring the territory of any state to another country. Parliament can only take such action after amending Article 368 of the Indian Constitution. The parliament had to introduce the 9th Amendment Act, which modified Schedule 1 of the Indian Constitution, in 1960. The Nehru-Noon Agreement granted Pakistan the Berubari union.
I C Golaknath Vs State of Punjab Case:
One of the most significant judgments in Indian legal history is 1967’s Golaknath vs the State of Punjab. The court ruled that the fundamental rights cannot be amended by the parliament. In the 1973 case Kesavananda Bharati v Union of India, this decision was overturned. In this case, the court had ruled that while the parliament can amend the constitution, it cannot change the constitution’s core framework.
Kesavananda Bharati v. Kerala State:
Kesavananda Bharati served as the head priest of the Edneer Mutt, a monastic religious organisation in Kerala’s Kasaragod district. Bharati had a stake in the Mutt. The Kerala State Legislature passed the Land Reforms Amendment Act in 1969. This Act authorised the government to purchase some of the Mutt’s lands. In March 1970, Bharati petitioned the Supreme Court (under Section 32 of the Constitution) to enforce his constitutional rights.
Article 25: Right to practice & propagate religion
Article 26: Right to manage religious affairs
Article 14: Right to equality
Article 19(1)(f): Freedom to acquire property
Article 31: Compulsory acquisition of property
According to the court, the 24th Amendment to the Constitution was completely legal. However, it was discovered that the first section of the 25th Amendment was unconstitutional and the second section was illegal. The Kesavananda Bharati case is significant because it established that the Constitution can be amended but not the fundamental structure.
A K Gopalan vs. Madras:
The court narrowed the scope of Article 21 in the AK Gopalan case in 1950, so it now only refers to the freedom of the individual’s body. According to the court, the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 is constitutional and does not infringe on any fundamental rights, and it even limits the application of Article 19.
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978:
Following this decision, the concept of ‘post decisional theory’ emerged. The court concluded that simply having a statute is insufficient. Such legislation must also be just, equitable, and reasonable. As a result of the court’s liberal interpretation of Article 21, the phrases ‘due process of law’ and ‘method established by law’ were added. The phrase ‘method established by law’ refers to the requirement that the proper procedure is followed in the creation of any law passed by the legislature or other similar authority. ‘ Due process of law’ refers to a government’s obligation to uphold and respect a person’s legal rights.
Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain Case:
A well-known case that altered the course of history and resulted in India declaring an emergency from 1975 to 1977. It is the case that called the judiciary’s authority into question and demonstrated how Parliament expected the court system to submit to them. Parliament attempted to assert its primacy in this case, but the judiciary overruled it. The fundamental structure of the Constitution, court jurisdiction, separation of the three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—as well as the right to free and fair elections, the rule of law, judicial review, and political justice were all called into question in this case.
S R Bommai Vs Union of India, 1994:
This case investigates the constitutional requirements for central-state relations, the legal method, and the disputed role of state governors in requesting presidential rule. The States are not considered insignificant appendices to the Center simply because tremendous power is discussed on the Center in relation to the States under the system of our Constitution. This decision led to the 1986 passage of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, which allowed Muslim women to receive lump sum payments from their husbands during the Iddat period instead of the maximum monthly payment of Rs 500.
Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India, 2018:
It was one of the Supreme Court’s most significant precedent-setting rulings regarding the LGBTQ community’s right to equality, which Victorian-era laws had denied them. Discrimination against a person based on their sexual orientation is deeply offensive to that person’s dignity and sense of self-worth. The community is entitled to the same rights and respect as any other person. The Supreme Court overturned a 158-year-old law that made carnal intercourse against nature a crime. The court overturned its previous decision in the Suresh Kaushal case and declared Section 377 unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Indira Sawhney Vs Union of India Case:
The 1992 ruling in Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India established the boundaries of the state’s authority. It affirmed the 50 per cent quota cap, underlined the idea of ‘social backwardness’ and provided 11 metrics to measure it. The five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court stated that the land in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid once stood belongs to Ram Lalla.
The Supreme Court mandated that a trust be established by the Center to regulate temple building. This decision was made on November 9, 2019. The court’s decision put a protracted legal dispute to rest and opened the route for the Ram Mandir to be built. In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, a bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman ruled Section 66A unconstitutional for ‘violating Article 19(1)(a) and not being saved under Article 19 (2)’.
The Court declined to hear the Petitioners’ claim of procedural unreasonableness because the law had previously been ruled unconstitutional on substantive grounds. Furthermore, it determined that Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act was unconstitutional when applied to Section 66A. Based on the foregoing arguments, the Court declared Section 66A of the ITA unconstitutional because it violated the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
Post Your Comments