The Long BenchDoctrine 6 of 8Articles 32 and 124

Judges, public interest litigation and accountability

S.P. Gupta (1981) opened the Court to public interest litigation and gave the executive the last word on appointing judges. The Second Judges case (1993) reversed that and created the collegium, and the NJAC case (2015) struck down the commission meant to replace it. Through public interest cases the Court also treated pay below the minimum wage as forced labour, ordered the release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers, set absolute liability for hazardous industries, applied the public trust doctrine, and gave directions on the CBI and the police.

9 judgments · 1981 to 2015 · 7 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.

1981
The First Judges case
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
Decided 30 December 1981 · 7 judges
Overruled in part by Second Judges case (1993)
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.
Later Applied in Asiad workers case (1982) · Overruled in part by Second Judges case (1993)
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
1982
Applied S.P. Gupta (1981)
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.
Later Built on in Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1983)
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
1983
Built on Asiad workers case (1982)
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.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
1986
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.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
1993
Overruled in part S.P. Gupta (1981)
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.
Later Applied in NJAC case (2015)
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
1996
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.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
1997
Built on Vishaka (1997) · Equality, reservation and education
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.
Later Built on in Prakash Singh (2006)
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
2006
Built on Vineet Narain (1997)
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.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)
2015
Applied Second Judges case (1993)Applied Kesavananda Bharati (1973) · The amending power and the basic structure
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.
Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)