The Long BenchDoctrine 8 of 8Articles 3, 25, 44, 356 and 370

Federalism, religion and family

On the Union and the States: Berubari (1960) on ceding territory, the privy purses case (1970), S.R. Bommai (1994) on President’s Rule, and the Article 370 judgment (2023). On religion and personal law: Shah Bano, Sarla Mudgal, Shayara Bano, Sabarimala and the Ayodhya case, with Vineeta Sharma on daughters’ rights as coparceners. And one criminal law classic, Nanavati, on grave and sudden provocation.

11 judgments · 1960 to 2023 · 4 links to earlier cases

In date order. The line above each judgment says what it did to an earlier case; Later says what became of it. Follow this case lights up the judgments it is linked to in this chapter.

1960
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.
Later Answered by Kesavananda Bharati (1973) · The amending power and the basic structure
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
1961
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.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
1970
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.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
1985
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).
Later Built on in Sarla Mudgal (1995) · Built on in Shayara Bano (2017)
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
1994
Applied Kesavananda Bharati (1973) · The amending power and the basic structure
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.
Later Applied in Article 370 case (2023)
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
1995
Built on Shah Bano (1985)
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.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
2017
Built on Shah Bano (1985)
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.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
2018
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.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
2019
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.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
2020
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.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
2023
Applied S.R. Bommai (1994)
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.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)