The Supreme Court’s long argument with itself, 1950 to 2024.

No. 01 · The preventive detention case

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras

Decided 19 May 1950 · 6 judges · 1950 SCR 88

Held. The Court upheld the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (except one section). It read “procedure established by law” in Article 21 as any procedure enacted by a legislature, not a procedure that must also be fair, and treated each fundamental right as a separate compartment to be tested on its own.

Why it matters. Gopalan is the starting point of the story of Article 21. Almost every later case on personal liberty is a reply to it.

Led to

07 The domiciliary visits case (applied) · 11 The bank nationalisation case (overruled) · 15 The habeas corpus case (applied) · 16 The passport case (overruled)

No. 02 · The Cross Roads case

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras

Decided 26 May 1950 · 6 judges · 1950 SCR 594

Held. Madras had banned the entry and circulation of the journal Cross Roads in the State on grounds of public safety. The Court struck the order down: freedom of speech includes freedom to circulate, and Article 19(2) as it then stood allowed restrictions only for graver dangers such as undermining the security of the State.

Why it matters. Parliament responded within a year: the First Amendment (1951) widened Article 19(2) to add “public order” and “friendly relations with foreign States”.

Led to

08 The sedition case (built on)

No. 03 · The Communal G.O. case

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan

Decided 9 April 1951 · 7 judges · 1951 SCR 525

Held. The Madras Government reserved seats in medical and engineering colleges by caste and religion through a Communal Government Order. The Court struck it down under Article 29(2), holding that the Directive Principles cannot override fundamental rights.

Why it matters. Parliament answered with Article 15(4), inserted by the First Amendment, which allows special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes.

Led to

04 The First Amendment case (answered) · 28 The Mandal case (answered)

No. 04 · The First Amendment case

Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India

Decided 5 October 1951 · 5 judges · 1952 SCR 89

Held. The Court upheld the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. It held that a constitutional amendment made under Article 368 is not “law” within Article 13, so Parliament could amend the fundamental rights.

Why it matters. This was the first round of the long argument over the amending power that runs through Room II.

Earlier cases

Answered 03 The Communal G.O. case

Led to

09 The Seventeenth Amendment case (applied) · 10 The Golaknath case (overruled)

No. 05 · The Berubari reference

In re: The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves

Decided 14 March 1960 · 8 judges · [1960] 3 SCR 250

Held. On a reference by the President under Article 143, the Court advised that ceding Indian territory to a foreign State (here under the Nehru–Noon agreement with Pakistan) could not be done by an ordinary law under Article 3; it needed an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368.

Why it matters. The Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960 followed. The reference is also the case usually cited for the view, later revised in Kesavananda, that the Preamble is not part of the Constitution.

Led to

13 The basic structure case (answered)

No. 06 · The Nanavati case

K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra

Decided 24 November 1961 · 3 judges · [1962] Supp (1) SCR 567

Held. A naval officer shot his wife’s lover hours after her confession. A Bombay jury acquitted him; the High Court set the verdict aside and convicted him of murder, and the Supreme Court agreed. Because he had time to cool down, the killing was not saved by the exception for “grave and sudden provocation”.

Why it matters. It is the standard case on grave and sudden provocation and the cooling-off period, and it is often linked to the end of jury trials in India.

No. 07 · The domiciliary visits case

Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.

Decided 18 December 1962 · 6 judges · [1964] 1 SCR 332

Held. The Court struck down the police regulation allowing night-time “domiciliary visits” to a suspect’s home as a violation of personal liberty under Article 21, but upheld the other forms of surveillance, holding that the Constitution did not guarantee a right to privacy.

Why it matters. Justice Subba Rao’s dissent, which found a right to privacy, was vindicated 55 years later in Puttaswamy, which overruled the majority on this point.

Earlier cases

Applied 01 The preventive detention case

Led to

49 The right to privacy case (overruled)

No. 08 · The sedition case

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar

Decided 20 January 1962 · 5 judges · [1962] Supp (2) SCR 769

Held. The Court upheld section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (sedition) but read it down: only words that incite violence, or tend to create public disorder, are punishable. Strong criticism of the government, without that tendency, is not sedition.

Why it matters. Kedar Nath remained the governing reading of sedition until the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaced the IPC in 2024.

Earlier cases

Built on 02 The Cross Roads case

Led to

47 The Section 66A case (built on)

No. 09 · The Seventeenth Amendment case

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Decided 30 October 1964 · 5 judges · [1965] 1 SCR 933

Held. By a majority the Court followed Sankari Prasad and upheld the Seventeenth Amendment, which added land reform laws to the Ninth Schedule. Justices Hidayatullah and Mudholkar doubted whether fundamental rights could be freely amended, and Mudholkar asked whether the Constitution had “basic features” beyond Parliament’s reach.

Why it matters. The separate opinions planted the idea that Golaknath and then Kesavananda would take up.

Earlier cases

Applied 04 The First Amendment case

Led to

10 The Golaknath case (overruled)

No. 10 · The Golaknath case

I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab

Decided 27 February 1967 · 11 judges · [1967] 2 SCR 762

Held. By six to five, the Court held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to take away or abridge fundamental rights: an amendment is “law” under Article 13. Applying prospective overruling, it left earlier amendments in force.

Why it matters. Parliament replied with the Twenty-fourth Amendment (1971), which said that Article 13 does not apply to amendments, and the conflict went to the thirteen-judge bench in Kesavananda.

Earlier cases

Overruled 04 The First Amendment case · Overruled 09 The Seventeenth Amendment case

Led to

13 The basic structure case (overruled)

No. 11 · The bank nationalisation case

Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India

Decided 10 February 1970 · 11 judges · [1970] 3 SCR 530

Held. The Court struck down the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969 because the compensation it offered was not compensation in the constitutional sense and the law discriminated against the fourteen banks. It also rejected Gopalan’s view that each fundamental right must be read in isolation: a law must answer to every right it affects.

Why it matters. The “effect” test of Cooper became the bridge from Gopalan to Maneka Gandhi.

Earlier cases

Overruled 01 The preventive detention case

Led to

16 The passport case (applied)

No. 12 · The privy purses case

Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India

Decided 15 December 1970 · 11 judges · [1971] 3 SCR 9

Held. The President had, by a single order, “derecognised” all the former Rulers of the princely States, ending their privy purses. The Court held the order invalid: the power to recognise Rulers could not be used to abolish the whole class.

Why it matters. The Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971) abolished privy purses and the recognition of Rulers outright.

No. 13 · The basic structure case

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Decided 24 April 1973 · 13 judges · (1973) 4 SCC 225

Held. Thirteen judges, the largest bench the Court has ever sat, held by seven to six that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights, but cannot alter its basic structure or framework. It overruled Golaknath and upheld the Twenty-fourth Amendment.

Why it matters. The basic structure doctrine is the single most important idea in Indian constitutional law, and the most examined.

Earlier cases

Overruled 10 The Golaknath case · Answered 05 The Berubari reference

Led to

14 The election case (applied) · 17 The Minerva Mills case (applied) · 31 The President’s Rule case (applied) · 36 The tribunals case (applied) · 41 The Ninth Schedule case (applied) · 48 The NJAC case (Fourth Judges case) (applied)

No. 14 · The election case

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain

Decided 7 November 1975 · 5 judges · [1976] 2 SCR 347

Held. The Allahabad High Court had set aside the Prime Minister’s election. During the Emergency, the Thirty-ninth Amendment put her election beyond the reach of the courts. The Supreme Court struck down that clause (Article 329A(4)) for destroying free and fair elections and judicial review, both part of the basic structure, while upholding her election on the amended election law.

Why it matters. It was the first time the basic structure doctrine was used to strike down a constitutional amendment.

Earlier cases

Applied 13 The basic structure case

No. 15 · The habeas corpus case

A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla

Decided 28 April 1976 · 5 judges · [1976] Supp SCR 172

Held. During the Emergency, by four to one, the Court held that while the Presidential order suspending the enforcement of Article 21 was in force, no one could go to a High Court for habeas corpus to challenge a detention, even on the ground that it was illegal or mala fide. Justice H.R. Khanna dissented alone.

Why it matters. In Puttaswamy (2017) the Court said the majority was seriously flawed and overruled it. The Forty-fourth Amendment (1978) had already provided that Articles 20 and 21 can never be suspended.

Earlier cases

Applied 01 The preventive detention case

Led to

49 The right to privacy case (overruled)

No. 16 · The passport case

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Decided 25 January 1978 · 7 judges · [1978] 2 SCR 621

Held. The government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving reasons. The Court held that the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable, not arbitrary, and that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are linked, so a law depriving a person of liberty must satisfy all three.

Why it matters. Maneka is the case that turned Article 21 into a source of new rights, the foundation for most of Room III.

Earlier cases

Overruled 01 The preventive detention case · Applied 11 The bank nationalisation case

Led to

18 The death penalty case (applied) · 19 The prisoners’ rights case (applied) · 20 The undertrials case (built on) · 25 The pavement dwellers case (built on) · 46 The transgender rights case (built on) · 49 The right to privacy case (applied)

No. 17 · The Minerva Mills case

Minerva Mills v. Union of India

Decided 31 July 1980 · 5 judges · [1981] 1 SCR 206

Held. The Court struck down the parts of the Forty-second Amendment that made constitutional amendments immune from judicial review (clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368) and gave all Directive Principles priority over Articles 14 and 19. Limited amending power, judicial review and the balance between Parts III and IV were held to be part of the basic structure.

Why it matters. Minerva Mills is the case most often cited for the harmony between fundamental rights and Directive Principles.

Earlier cases

Applied 13 The basic structure case

Led to

36 The tribunals case (applied)

No. 18 · The death penalty case

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

Decided 9 May 1980 · 5 judges · (1980) 2 SCC 684

Held. By four to one, the Court upheld the death penalty for murder, but held that it may be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases, when the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed, weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances of both the crime and the criminal. Justice Bhagwati dissented.

Why it matters. The “rarest of rare” test still governs sentencing in capital cases.

Earlier cases

Applied 16 The passport case

No. 19 · The prisoners’ rights case

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration

Decided 30 August 1978 · 5 judges · [1979] 1 SCR 392

Held. The Court held that a convict is not stripped of fundamental rights by conviction. Section 30(2) of the Prisons Act, which keeps a “prisoner under sentence of death” in a cell apart, does not allow solitary confinement, and applies only once the death sentence has become final. In the companion petition of Charles Sobhraj, it read down the use of bar fetters (section 56).

Why it matters. It is the foundation of prison jurisprudence in India.

Earlier cases

Applied 16 The passport case

No. 20 · The undertrials case

Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar

Decided 12 February 1979 · 3 judges · [1979] 3 SCR 169

Held. Acting on newspaper reports that thousands of undertrial prisoners in Bihar had been in jail longer than the maximum sentence for their alleged offences, the Court held that a speedy trial is part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21, and ordered the release of many of them.

Why it matters. It was among the first public interest litigations, and it made speedy trial and free legal aid part of Article 21.

Earlier cases

Built on 16 The passport case

No. 21 · The First Judges case

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India

Decided 30 December 1981 · 7 judges

Held. The Court relaxed the rule of standing: any member of the public with sufficient interest may approach the Court on behalf of those who cannot. On appointments, it held that “consultation” with the Chief Justice did not mean his concurrence, so the executive had the last word on appointing judges.

Why it matters. Its standing rule underpins public interest litigation. Its holding on appointments was overruled by the Second Judges case in 1993.

Led to

22 The Asiad workers case (applied) · 30 The Second Judges case (overruled)

No. 22 · The Asiad workers case

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India

Decided 18 September 1982 · 2 judges · [1983] 1 SCR 456

Held. Workers building facilities for the 1982 Asian Games were paid below the minimum wage. The Court, acting on a letter, held that paying less than the minimum wage is “forced labour” under Article 23, and that some fundamental rights, including Articles 23 and 24, can be enforced against private parties.

Why it matters. It is a leading case on Article 23 and on the letter-petition form of public interest litigation.

Earlier cases

Applied 21 The First Judges case

Led to

24 The bonded labour case (built on)

No. 23 · The compensation case

Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar

Decided 1 August 1983 · 3 judges · [1983] 3 SCR 508

Held. Rudul Sah was kept in jail for more than fourteen years after he was acquitted. The Court held that, in a petition under Article 32, it can order the State to pay compensation for the violation of the right to liberty, and awarded him interim compensation.

Why it matters. It began the line of cases on compensation for violations of fundamental rights, carried on in D.K. Basu.

Led to

33 The arrest guidelines case (built on)

No. 24 · The bonded labour case

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India

Decided 16 December 1983 · 3 judges · [1984] 2 SCR 67

Held. On a letter about bonded labourers working in stone quarries near Delhi, the Court held that the right to live with human dignity under Article 21 includes the protection of workers and children, appointed commissioners to investigate, and directed the governments to identify, release and rehabilitate bonded labourers.

Why it matters. It shows the Court using commissions of inquiry and continuing directions in a public interest case.

Earlier cases

Built on 22 The Asiad workers case

No. 25 · The pavement dwellers case

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

Decided 10 July 1985 · 5 judges · [1985] Supp (2) SCR 51

Held. Pavement and slum dwellers challenged their eviction in Bombay. The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood. Eviction was not barred, but had to follow a fair procedure, with notice and time.

Why it matters. Olga Tellis is the case cited for the right to livelihood.

Earlier cases

Built on 16 The passport case

Led to

29 The right to education case (built on)

No. 26 · The Shah Bano case

Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum

Decided 23 April 1985 · 5 judges · [1985] 3 SCR 844

Held. The Court held that a divorced Muslim woman who cannot maintain herself can claim maintenance from her former husband under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a secular provision, beyond the iddat period. It also urged the State to work towards a uniform civil code under Article 44.

Why it matters. Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 in response. The Court later read that Act to give fair provision beyond iddat (Danial Latifi, 2001).

Led to

32 The conversion-for-bigamy case (built on) · 50 The triple talaq case (built on)

No. 27 · The oleum gas leak case

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

Decided 20 December 1986 · 5 judges · [1987] 1 SCR 819

Held. After a leak of oleum gas from a Shriram factory in Delhi, a year after Bhopal, the Court held that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely liable for harm caused by an accident. The exceptions to the English rule of strict liability in Rylands v. Fletcher do not apply.

Why it matters. Absolute liability is a staple of legal reasoning questions on torts.

No. 28 · The Mandal case

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India

Decided 16 November 1992 · 9 judges · [1992] Supp (2) SCR 454

Held. The Court upheld 27 per cent reservation in central government jobs for socially and educationally backward classes, but required the “creamy layer” to be excluded, held that reservations should not ordinarily exceed 50 per cent, and held that reservation does not apply to promotions. It struck down a 10 per cent quota based purely on economic criteria.

Why it matters. Indra Sawhney sets the framework for almost every reservation question since.

Earlier cases

Answered 03 The Communal G.O. case

Led to

64 The sub-classification case (built on)

No. 29 · The right to education case

Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Decided 4 February 1993 · 5 judges · [1993] 1 SCR 594

Held. The Court held that every child has a fundamental right to free education up to the age of fourteen, flowing from Article 21 read with the Directive Principles. Beyond that age the right depends on the State’s economic capacity. It also framed a scheme for admissions and fees in private professional colleges.

Why it matters. Its right to education led to Article 21A (2002). Its admission scheme was overruled in T.M.A. Pai.

Earlier cases

Built on 25 The pavement dwellers case

Led to

38 The private education case (overruled)

No. 30 · The Second Judges case

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India

Decided 6 October 1993 · 9 judges · (1993) 4 SCC 441

Held. The Court held that in appointing judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, formed in consultation with senior judges, has primacy. This is the origin of the collegium system.

Why it matters. The Third Judges case (an advisory opinion of 1998) settled the collegium at the Chief Justice and four senior-most judges.

Earlier cases

Overruled 21 The First Judges case

Led to

48 The NJAC case (Fourth Judges case) (applied)

No. 31 · The President’s Rule case

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

Decided 11 March 1994 · 9 judges

Held. The Court held that a proclamation of President’s Rule under Article 356 is open to judicial review; that the majority of a State government must be tested on the floor of the House, not in the Governor’s chamber; and that secularism is part of the basic structure.

Why it matters. Bommai sharply reduced the misuse of Article 356.

Earlier cases

Applied 13 The basic structure case

Led to

60 The Article 370 case (applied)

No. 32 · The conversion-for-bigamy case

Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India

Decided 10 May 1995 · 2 judges · (1995) 3 SCC 635

Held. A Hindu husband who converts to Islam only to marry again, without dissolving his first marriage, commits bigamy under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code: the first marriage, under Hindu law, continues.

Why it matters. Like Shah Bano, it is often cited in debates on a uniform civil code.

Earlier cases

Built on 26 The Shah Bano case

No. 33 · The arrest guidelines case

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal

Decided 18 December 1996 · 2 judges · (1997) 1 SCC 416

Held. Treating a letter about deaths in police custody as a petition, the Court laid down requirements to be followed on every arrest, such as an arrest memo, informing a relative, a medical examination and the right to meet a lawyer during interrogation, and held that compensation can be awarded for custodial violence.

Why it matters. Many of the D.K. Basu requirements were later written into the Code of Criminal Procedure, and now the BNSS.

Earlier cases

Built on 23 The compensation case

No. 34 · The Span Motel case

M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath

Decided 13 December 1996 · 2 judges

Held. A motel in Kullu had encroached on the bed and banks of the river Beas. The Court applied the public trust doctrine: the State holds natural resources such as rivers, forests and the seashore in trust for the public and cannot hand them over to private use. It ordered the land restored.

Why it matters. It is the case that brought the public trust doctrine into Indian environmental law.

No. 35 · The workplace harassment case

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

Decided 13 August 1997 · 3 judges · (1997) 6 SCC 241

Held. After the gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, the Court held that sexual harassment at work violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21. In the absence of a law, it drew on CEDAW to lay down binding guidelines for employers until Parliament legislated.

Why it matters. The guidelines governed workplaces until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. Vishaka is the classic example of the Court filling a legislative gap.

Led to

37 The Jain hawala case (built on) · 59 The Election Commission appointments case (built on)

No. 36 · The tribunals case

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India

Decided 18 March 1997 · 7 judges · (1997) 3 SCC 261

Held. The Court held that the power of judicial review of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227, and of the Supreme Court under Article 32, is part of the basic structure. Decisions of tribunals such as the Central Administrative Tribunal must therefore be open to challenge before a High Court.

Why it matters. It struck down the clauses of Articles 323A and 323B that had excluded the High Courts.

Earlier cases

Applied 13 The basic structure case · Applied 17 The Minerva Mills case

No. 37 · The Jain hawala case

Vineet Narain v. Union of India

Decided 18 December 1997 · 3 judges · (1998) 1 SCC 226

Held. In a case about the CBI’s failure to investigate the “Jain diaries”, the Court gave the Central Vigilance Commission statutory-style oversight of the CBI, fixed a minimum tenure for the CBI Director and struck down the “single directive” that required prior sanction to investigate senior officers.

Why it matters. Its directions led to the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.

Earlier cases

Built on 35 The workplace harassment case

Led to

40 The police reform case (built on)

No. 38 · The private education case

T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka

Decided 31 October 2002 · 11 judges

Held. An eleven-judge bench held that the right to establish and run educational institutions is part of the right to carry on an occupation under Article 19(1)(g), and that private unaided institutions have autonomy over admissions and fees, subject to merit and a ban on profiteering. Minority status is to be judged State by State.

Why it matters. It overruled the admissions and fee scheme of Unni Krishnan.

Earlier cases

Overruled 29 The right to education case

No. 39 · The candidate disclosure case

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms

Decided 2 May 2002 · 3 judges · (2002) 5 SCC 294

Held. The Court held that voters have a right to know the antecedents of candidates, part of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a), and directed the Election Commission to require every candidate to disclose criminal cases, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications.

Why it matters. Voters’ right to know runs from this case to the electoral bonds judgment of 2024.

Led to

43 The disqualification case (built on) · 44 The NOTA case (built on) · 62 The electoral bonds case (built on)

No. 40 · The police reform case

Prakash Singh v. Union of India

Decided 22 September 2006 · 3 judges

Held. The Court directed every State to set up a State Security Commission, give the DGP and senior officers a minimum tenure, separate investigation from law-and-order duties and create Police Complaints Authorities, to insulate the police from political interference.

Why it matters. It is the leading case on police reform and on continuing mandamus.

Earlier cases

Built on 37 The Jain hawala case

No. 41 · The Ninth Schedule case

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu

Decided 11 January 2007 · 9 judges

Held. A nine-judge bench held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 (the date of Kesavananda) can be tested against the basic structure, including the essence of the rights in Articles 14, 19 and 21. Inclusion in the Schedule does not give them blanket immunity.

Why it matters. It ties the Ninth Schedule to the basic structure doctrine.

Earlier cases

Applied 13 The basic structure case

No. 42 · The euthanasia case

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India

Decided 7 March 2011 · 2 judges · (2011) 4 SCC 454

Held. The Court refused to withdraw life support from Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse in a permanent vegetative state since 1973, but held that passive euthanasia (withdrawing life support) could be allowed in some cases with the approval of a High Court. Active euthanasia remained unlawful.

Why it matters. Common Cause (2018) built a fuller framework, including living wills, on this foundation.

Led to

53 The living will case (built on)

No. 43 · The disqualification case

Lily Thomas v. Union of India

Decided 10 July 2013 · 2 judges · (2013) 7 SCC 653

Held. The Court struck down section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which let sitting legislators keep their seats while appealing a conviction. A Member of Parliament or of a State Legislature convicted of an offence carrying the disqualification now loses the seat from the date of conviction.

Why it matters. It is the case behind the immediate disqualification of convicted legislators.

Earlier cases

Built on 39 The candidate disclosure case

No. 44 · The NOTA case

People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India

Decided 27 September 2013 · 3 judges

Held. The Court held that the right to vote includes the right not to vote for any candidate, and that this choice must be secret. It directed the Election Commission to provide a “None of the Above” (NOTA) button on electronic voting machines.

Why it matters. NOTA appeared on ballots from the elections of late 2013.

Earlier cases

Built on 39 The candidate disclosure case

No. 45 · The Koushal case

Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation

Decided 11 December 2013 · 2 judges · (2014) 1 SCC 1

Held. The Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s 2009 judgment in Naz Foundation and held section 377 of the Indian Penal Code constitutional, observing that LGBT persons were a “miniscule fraction” of the country’s population, and leaving any change to Parliament.

Why it matters. It was overruled five years later in Navtej Singh Johar.

Led to

51 The Section 377 case (overruled)

No. 46 · The transgender rights case

National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India

Decided 15 April 2014 · 2 judges

Held. The Court recognised transgender persons as a “third gender”, held that the right to self-identify one’s gender is part of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21, and directed the governments to treat them as socially and educationally backward for reservations and to provide welfare measures.

Why it matters. It led, eventually, to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.

Earlier cases

Built on 16 The passport case

Led to

51 The Section 377 case (built on) · 61 The same-sex marriage case (built on)

No. 47 · The Section 66A case

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

Decided 24 March 2015 · 2 judges · (2015) 5 SCC 1

Held. The Court struck down section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which punished “grossly offensive” or “menacing” online messages, as vague and overbroad: it caught speech that Article 19(2) does not allow to be restricted. It read down the intermediary safe harbour so that platforms must act only on a court order or government notification.

Why it matters. It is the leading case on online speech and on the difference between discussion, advocacy and incitement.

Earlier cases

Built on 08 The sedition case

Led to

57 The internet shutdown case (built on)

No. 48 · The NJAC case (Fourth Judges case)

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India

Decided 16 October 2015 · 5 judges

Held. By four to one, the Court struck down the Ninety-ninth Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, which would have replaced the collegium with a commission including the Law Minister and two eminent persons. Primacy of the judiciary in appointments was held to be part of judicial independence, a basic feature.

Why it matters. The collegium system was restored. The official text of the Constitution still prints the amended Article 124 with a note that it was struck down.

Earlier cases

Applied 30 The Second Judges case · Applied 13 The basic structure case

No. 49 · The right to privacy case

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India

Decided 24 August 2017 · 9 judges · (2017) 10 SCC 1

Held. A nine-judge bench unanimously held that privacy is a fundamental right, protected as part of life and personal liberty under Article 21 and by the freedoms in Part III. It overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh to the extent they held otherwise, and said that the majority in A.D.M. Jabalpur was seriously flawed.

Why it matters. Puttaswamy is the source of the proportionality test now used for almost every rights claim, and it opened the way to Navtej and Joseph Shine.

Earlier cases

Overruled 07 The domiciliary visits case · Overruled 15 The habeas corpus case · Applied 16 The passport case

Led to

51 The Section 377 case (applied) · 52 The adultery case (applied) · 55 The Aadhaar case (applied) · 57 The internet shutdown case (applied) · 62 The electoral bonds case (applied)

No. 50 · The triple talaq case

Shayara Bano v. Union of India

Decided 22 August 2017 · 5 judges · (2017) 9 SCC 1

Held. By three to two, the Court set aside the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat). Two judges held it arbitrary and void under Article 14; Justice Kurian Joseph held that it had no basis in the Quran. Two judges would have upheld it as a personal law practice and left reform to Parliament.

Why it matters. Parliament made instant triple talaq void and an offence by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

Earlier cases

Built on 26 The Shah Bano case

No. 51 · The Section 377 case

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India

Decided 6 September 2018 · 5 judges · (2018) 10 SCC 1

Held. The Court unanimously read down section 377 of the Indian Penal Code so that it no longer applies to consensual sexual acts between adults, whether of the same sex or not. It held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21, and overruled Koushal.

Why it matters. It applied Puttaswamy’s reasoning on dignity, autonomy and privacy.

Earlier cases

Overruled 45 The Koushal case · Applied 49 The right to privacy case · Built on 46 The transgender rights case

Led to

61 The same-sex marriage case (built on)

No. 52 · The adultery case

Joseph Shine v. Union of India

Decided 27 September 2018 · 5 judges · (2019) 3 SCC 39

Held. The Court unanimously struck down section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which punished a man for adultery with another man’s wife but treated the wife as her husband’s property and not as an offender. Adultery may still be a ground for divorce, but it is no longer a crime.

Why it matters. It is often paired with Navtej as an application of dignity and equality under Puttaswamy.

Earlier cases

Applied 49 The right to privacy case

No. 53 · The living will case

Common Cause v. Union of India

Decided 9 March 2018 · 5 judges · (2018) 5 SCC 1

Held. The Court held that the right to live with dignity under Article 21 includes the right to die with dignity. It recognised advance medical directives (“living wills”) and laid down a procedure for withdrawing life support from terminally ill patients.

Why it matters. The Court simplified the procedure in 2023. It confirmed passive euthanasia as lawful, building on Aruna Shanbaug.

Earlier cases

Built on 42 The euthanasia case

No. 54 · The Sabarimala case

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala

Decided 28 September 2018 · 5 judges

Held. By four to one, the Court held that excluding women between ten and fifty from the Sabarimala temple violated their right to worship under Article 25, and that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa are not a separate religious denomination. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented.

Why it matters. In 2019 a five-judge bench, hearing review petitions, referred wider questions on religion and equality to a larger bench.

No. 55 · The Aadhaar case

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Aadhaar)

Decided 26 September 2018 · 5 judges · (2019) 1 SCC 1

Held. By four to one, the Court upheld the Aadhaar scheme for welfare subsidies and benefits, but struck down section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, which had let private companies demand Aadhaar, and held that it cannot be made compulsory for bank accounts, mobile connections or school admissions. Justice Chandrachud dissented.

Why it matters. It is the first major application of the proportionality test from the privacy judgment.

Earlier cases

Applied 49 The right to privacy case

No. 56 · The Ayodhya case

M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das

Decided 9 November 2019 · 5 judges · (2020) 1 SCC 1

Held. A unanimous five-judge bench awarded the disputed site at Ayodhya to the deity Ram Lalla Virajman for the construction of a temple, and directed that five acres be given to the Sunni Waqf Board elsewhere in Ayodhya for a mosque. It held that the 1992 demolition of the mosque was a serious violation of the law.

Why it matters. It is one of the longest judgments in the Court’s history and a frequent current-affairs question.

No. 57 · The internet shutdown case

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India

Decided 10 January 2020 · 3 judges

Held. After restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019, the Court held that freedom of speech and the freedom to carry on a trade through the internet are protected under Article 19. An indefinite suspension of internet services is not permissible; orders must be published, temporary and proportionate, and are open to judicial review.

Why it matters. It is the leading case on internet shutdowns.

Earlier cases

Built on 47 The Section 66A case · Applied 49 The right to privacy case

No. 58 · The daughters’ coparcenary case

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma

Decided 11 August 2020 · 3 judges

Held. The Court held that under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005, a daughter is a coparcener by birth in the same way as a son, whether or not her father was alive on 9 September 2005, the date the amendment came into force.

Why it matters. It settled conflicting earlier judgments, and is a common question in family law passages.

No. 59 · The Election Commission appointments case

Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India

Decided 2 March 2023 · 5 judges

Held. Until Parliament made a law, the Court directed that the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners be appointed by the President on the advice of a committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (or of the largest opposition party) in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.

Why it matters. Parliament then enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which puts a Union Cabinet Minister in the place of the Chief Justice.

Earlier cases

Built on 35 The workplace harassment case

No. 60 · The Article 370 case

In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution

Decided 11 December 2023 · 5 judges

Held. The Court unanimously upheld the Presidential orders of August 2019 that applied the whole Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir and declared that Article 370 had ceased to operate. It held that Article 370 was a temporary provision and that Jammu and Kashmir had no internal sovereignty after accession. It directed elections to the Legislative Assembly by 30 September 2024.

Why it matters. It left open the validity of converting a State into a Union Territory, recording the government’s statement that statehood would be restored.

Earlier cases

Applied 31 The President’s Rule case

No. 61 · The same-sex marriage case

Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India

Decided 17 October 2023 · 5 judges

Held. The Court unanimously held that there is no fundamental right to marry and declined to read the Special Marriage Act to include same-sex couples, leaving the question to Parliament. By three to two, it also declined to recognise civil unions or allow joint adoption by unmarried couples.

Why it matters. It recorded the government’s offer to set up a committee to examine the rights of queer couples.

Earlier cases

Built on 51 The Section 377 case · Built on 46 The transgender rights case

No. 62 · The electoral bonds case

Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India

Decided 15 February 2024 · 5 judges

Held. The Court unanimously struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018 and the amendments that allowed anonymous and unlimited political donations, including by companies. It held that voters’ right to information about political funding is part of Article 19(1)(a), and directed the State Bank of India to disclose the bond details to the Election Commission for publication.

Why it matters. It is the latest step in the line of cases on voters’ right to know.

Earlier cases

Built on 39 The candidate disclosure case · Applied 49 The right to privacy case

No. 63 · The legislators’ bribery case

Sita Soren v. Union of India

Decided 4 March 2024 · 7 judges

Held. A seven-judge bench unanimously held that parliamentary privilege under Articles 105 and 194 does not protect a legislator who takes a bribe to vote or speak in a certain way. The offence is complete when the bribe is taken. It overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998).

Why it matters. It is the leading case on the limits of legislative privilege.

No. 64 · The sub-classification case

State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh

Decided 1 August 2024 · 7 judges

Held. By six to one, a seven-judge bench held that States may sub-classify the Scheduled Castes to give more weight to the groups that are most backward, provided the sub-classification rests on quantifiable and demonstrable data. It overruled E.V. Chinnaiah (2004).

Why it matters. It builds on Indra Sawhney’s acceptance of sub-classification within backward classes.

Earlier cases

Built on 28 The Mandal case