Fundamental Rights, Article by Article

1952

State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar

Article 14 · Special courts struck down

A West Bengal law let the government send any case it chose to special courts with a truncated procedure, without laying down any criterion. A seven-judge bench struck it down under Article 14, because it conferred unguided discretion to treat similar cases differently.

• Unguided discretion to classify violates Article 14.

1974

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu

Article 14 · Equality versus arbitrariness

A senior IAS officer challenged his transfer. The challenge failed, but Justice Bhagwati's opinion introduced the "new doctrine" of equality: equality is a dynamic concept, and arbitrariness is antithetical to it. Since then Article 14 has been used to strike down arbitrary State action, not only unreasonable classification.

• "Equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies."

1981

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi

Article 12 · Who is "the State"?

The Court held that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act (the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar) was an instrumentality of the State and therefore "the State" under Article 12. It set out tests such as government funding, deep and pervasive State control, and functions of public importance. It also held that allotting too high a weight to interviews in admissions was arbitrary.

22 August 2017

Shayara Bano v. Union of India

Articles 14 and 25 · Instant triple talaq

A five-judge bench set aside the practice of talaq-e-biddat (instant, irrevocable triple talaq) by 3:2. Justices Nariman and Lalit held it manifestly arbitrary under Article 14; Justice Kurian Joseph held it had no sanction in the Quran. Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Nazeer would have left it to Parliament. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019 later made pronouncing triple talaq a criminal offence.

• Decided 3:2.
• Led to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019.
• Introduced "manifest arbitrariness" as a ground to strike down legislation.

1962

M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore

Article 15(4) · The first 50% limit

The Supreme Court struck down a Mysore order reserving 68% of seats in professional colleges, holding that reservations should generally be less than 50% and that caste may be a relevant but not the sole test of backwardness.

• First statement of the 50% guideline.

1976

State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas

Article 16 · Substantive equality

The Court upheld a rule giving Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe employees extra time to pass departmental tests, holding that Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1) but a facet of the equality it guarantees. This idea of substantive equality was later adopted in Indra Sawhney.

1950

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras

Article 19(1)(a) · Freedom of the press

The Madras government banned the entry of Cross Roads, a leftist journal, into the state in the interest of "public safety". The Supreme Court held the ban invalid, because "public safety" was not a ground for restricting speech under the original Article 19(2), and that freedom of speech includes the freedom to circulate. The case, with Brij Bhushan (1950), led to the First Amendment adding "public order" to Article 19(2).

• With Brij Bhushan (1950), led to "public order" being added to Article 19(2).

1962

Sakal Papers v. Union of India

Article 19(1)(a) · Pages and prices

The Court struck down a law regulating the number of pages a newspaper could publish according to its price, holding that it directly restricted circulation and therefore freedom of the press; the State could not justify it as a reasonable restriction on business.

1973

Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India

Article 19(1)(a) · Newsprint quotas

The Court struck down the Newsprint Control Policy, which limited the number of pages newspapers could print, holding that freedom of the press covers both the quantity and the circulation of the paper, and that shareholders can challenge laws affecting a company's fundamental rights.

1985

Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India

Article 19(1)(a) · Taxing the press

The Court held that imposing customs duty on newsprint is not unconstitutional in itself, but that a tax on the press that is excessive and curtails circulation would be struck down; freedom of the press is at the heart of social and political intercourse.

1989

S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram

Article 19(1)(a) · Films and the "spark in a powder keg"

The Madras High Court had revoked the certificate of the Tamil film Ore Oru Gramathiley, which criticised the reservation policy. The Supreme Court restored it, holding that expression can be restricted only if the danger is proximate and direct, "like a spark in a powder keg", and not remote or conjectural.

• The "spark in a powder keg" test.

24 March 2015

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

Article 19(1)(a) · Section 66A struck down

After two young women in Palghar were arrested for a Facebook post, law student Shreya Singhal challenged Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, which criminalised "grossly offensive" or "menacing" online messages. The Supreme Court struck it down as vague and overbroad, distinguishing discussion and advocacy (protected) from incitement (restrictable). It read down Section 79 on intermediary liability to require a court or government order before content must be removed.

• Section 66A struck down as vague and overbroad.
• Distinguished discussion, advocacy and incitement.
• Justice R.F. Nariman wrote the judgment.

2016

Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India

Article 19(1)(a) · Criminal defamation upheld

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation (Sections 499 and 500 IPC), holding that reputation is part of the right to life under Article 21 and that criminal defamation is a reasonable restriction on free speech. The offence continues in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Section 356).

• Criminal defamation continues in BNS Section 356.

2023

Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Article 19 · Rights against private persons

A five-judge bench held that the rights under Articles 19 and 21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State (horizontal application), and that no additional restrictions beyond those in Article 19(2) can be placed on the free speech of ministers. A minister's statement cannot be attributed vicariously to the government.

• Recognised horizontal application of Articles 19 and 21.

1962

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar

Article 19 · Sedition read down

A Constitution Bench upheld Section 124A IPC (sedition) but confined it to speech that incites violence or has a tendency to create public disorder; mere criticism of the government, however strong, is not sedition. In 2022 the Supreme Court put the section in abeyance, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 replaced it with Section 152 (acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India).

• Sedition limited to incitement to violence or public disorder.
• Replaced in the BNS by Section 152.

1962

Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar

Article 19 · The right to demonstrate

The Court struck down a rule that banned government servants from taking part in any demonstration, holding that a peaceful and orderly demonstration is a form of expression protected by Article 19(1)(a) and (b), though the right to strike is not.

1950

Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Article 19(1)(g) · Reasonable restrictions

The Court struck down a law that banned bidi-making during the agricultural season, holding that a restriction that goes beyond what is required in the public interest is not "reasonable"; "reasonable" implies intelligent care and deliberation, the choice of a course dictated by reason.

• An early definition of "reasonable restriction".

1986

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala

Articles 19 and 25 · The national anthem case

Three children of Jehovah's Witnesses were expelled from school for standing respectfully but not singing the national anthem, which their faith forbade. The Supreme Court held that the expulsion violated their freedom of speech (which includes the right to remain silent) and freedom of religion. "Our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practises tolerance; let us not dilute it."

• Freedom of speech includes the right to remain silent.

1978

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani

Article 20(3) · The right to silence

A former Chief Minister of Odisha refused to answer police questions. The Supreme Court held that the protection against self-incrimination applies at the stage of police investigation, not just trial, and covers any answer that has a reasonable tendency to incriminate.

2010

Selvi v. State of Karnataka

Article 20(3) · Narco-analysis

A three-judge bench held that the compulsory administration of narco-analysis, polygraph and brain electrical activation profile (BEAP) tests violates the right against self-incrimination and personal liberty. These tests may be carried out only with the person's consent, and even then the results are not admissible as evidence by themselves.

• Involuntary narco tests are unconstitutional.

1961

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad

Article 20(3) · Fingerprints are not testimony

An eleven-judge bench held that compelling an accused to give specimen handwriting, signatures, fingerprints or palm impressions does not violate Article 20(3), because these are not "personal testimony" conveying knowledge of facts.

1962

Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Article 21 · Surveillance and privacy

The Court struck down police regulations permitting nightly "domiciliary visits" to a person's home as violating personal liberty, but upheld other surveillance, and the majority held that the Constitution did not guarantee a right to privacy. Justice Subba Rao's dissent, recognising privacy as part of personal liberty, was vindicated in Puttaswamy (2017).

• Justice Subba Rao dissented, recognising privacy.

1981

Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Delhi

Article 21 · Life with dignity

A detenu was restricted in meeting her lawyer and family. Justice Bhagwati held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes with it, including the bare necessities of life, adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter.

• "The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity."

1985

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

Article 21 · The right to livelihood

Pavement dwellers in Bombay challenged their eviction. The Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood, and that evictions must follow a fair procedure with notice, though it did not stop the evictions outright. Journalist Olga Tellis was one of the petitioners.

• Right to livelihood is part of Article 21.

1989

Parmanand Katara v. Union of India

Article 21 · Emergency medical care

The Court held that every doctor, government or private, has a professional obligation to give immediate medical aid to an injured person to preserve life, without waiting for police formalities in medico-legal cases.

1992–1993

Mohini Jain (1992) and Unni Krishnan (1993)

Article 21 · The right to education

In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka the Court held that the right to education flows from the right to life and struck down capitation fees. In Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh a five-judge bench limited this: every child has a fundamental right to free education until 14, after which it depends on the State's economic capacity. This led to Article 21A (2002).

• Unni Krishnan: free education up to 14 is a fundamental right.
• Led to Article 21A.

1994–1996

P. Rathinam (1994) and Gian Kaur (1996)

Article 21 · Is there a right to die?

In P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) a two-judge bench struck down Section 309 IPC (attempt to suicide), holding that the right to life includes the right not to live. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) a five-judge bench overruled it: the right to life does not include the right to die, though it includes the right to die with dignity at the natural end of life.

• Gian Kaur overruled P. Rathinam.

2011

Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India

Article 21 · Passive euthanasia

Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse at a Mumbai hospital, had been in a persistent vegetative state since a sexual assault in 1973. The Court rejected the plea to withdraw her life support, but for the first time permitted passive euthanasia in India, with the approval of the High Court. She died in 2015, 42 years after the assault.

• First judicial recognition of passive euthanasia in India.

9 March 2018

Common Cause v. Union of India

Article 21 · Living wills

A five-judge bench held that the right to die with dignity is part of Article 21, recognised "advance medical directives" (living wills), and laid down guidelines for passive euthanasia. In January 2023 the Court simplified those guidelines, removing the need for a magistrate to countersign a living will.

• Recognised living wills.
• Guidelines simplified in 2023.

2009–2013

Naz Foundation (2009) and Suresh Kumar Koushal (2013)

Article 21 · Section 377, round one

In Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009) the Delhi High Court decriminalised consensual homosexual acts between adults, reading down Section 377 IPC. In Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013) the Supreme Court reversed it, saying only a "minuscule fraction" of the population was affected. Koushal was overruled in Navtej Singh Johar (2018).

• Delhi High Court bench: Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar.

6 September 2018

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India

Article 21 · Section 377 read down

A five-judge bench unanimously held Section 377 IPC unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalised consensual sexual acts between adults, overruling Suresh Kumar Koushal. The judges relied on dignity, privacy, equality and "constitutional morality" over popular morality. Justice Indu Malhotra wrote that history owed an apology to the LGBTQ+ community.

• Unanimous five-judge bench.
• Petitioner Navtej Singh Johar is a Bharatanatyam dancer.

27 September 2018

Joseph Shine v. Union of India

Articles 14, 15 and 21 · Adultery decriminalised

A five-judge bench unanimously struck down Section 497 IPC (adultery), which punished only a man for sex with another man's wife and treated the wife as her husband's property. It overruled Sowmithri Vishnu (1985). Adultery remains a ground for divorce but is no longer a crime.

• Overruled Sowmithri Vishnu (1985).
• Adultery remains a ground for divorce.

2018

Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (Hadiya Case)

Article 21 · The right to choose a partner

The Kerala High Court had annulled the marriage of Hadiya, an adult woman who had converted to Islam, to Shafin Jahan. The Supreme Court restored the marriage, holding that the right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to Article 21 and that courts cannot annul an adult's marriage in the name of parens patriae.

1996

M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (Child Labour Case)

Article 24 · Children in Sivakasi's factories

In a PIL about children working in the match and firework factories of Sivakasi, the Supreme Court directed that offending employers pay ₹20,000 per child into a Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund, and that the State provide education and employment support for the child's family.

• ₹20,000 per child to a welfare fund.

1982

A.K. Roy v. Union of India

Article 22 · Preventive detention upheld

A Constitution Bench upheld the National Security Act 1980, which allows preventive detention for up to twelve months, while insisting on the procedural safeguards of Article 22 and reading down vague grounds of detention.

1954

Commissioner, HRE v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt

Article 25 · The "essential religious practices" test

The Court held that "religion" includes practices regarded as an integral part of it by its followers, and that only essential religious practices are protected against State regulation, while secular activities associated with religion can be regulated. Justice B.K. Mukherjea wrote the judgment.

• Origin of the "essential religious practices" test.

1977

Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Article 25 · Propagation is not conversion

The Court upheld state anti-conversion laws, holding that the right to "propagate" religion under Article 25 does not include a right to convert another person, since that would impinge on the freedom of conscience guaranteed to all.

1994

Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India

Article 25 · A mosque is not essential

The Court upheld the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993, observing that a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of Islam and that namaz can be offered anywhere, so the State could acquire it. It declined to answer the Presidential reference on whether a temple had existed at the site.

• The Court declined to answer the Article 143 reference.

28 September 2018

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala)

Articles 14, 17 and 25 · Women and the temple

A five-judge bench held by 4:1 that barring women aged 10 to 50 from the Sabarimala temple violated their rights to equality and freedom of religion, and that devotees of Lord Ayyappa are not a separate religious denomination. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented. In November 2019 a bench referred wider questions on religious freedom to a nine-judge bench, without staying the judgment.

• Decided 4:1.
• Dissent: Indu Malhotra.
• Larger questions referred to a nine-judge bench (2019).

13 October 2022

Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka (Hijab Case)

Article 25 · A split verdict

The Karnataka High Court had upheld a government order allowing schools to ban the hijab in classrooms. On appeal, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court split: Justice Hemant Gupta upheld the ban, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia held that wearing the hijab was a matter of choice. The case was referred to a larger bench.

• Split verdict: Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia.

1958

In re Kerala Education Bill

Article 30 · Minority institutions and aid

On a Presidential reference, a seven-judge bench held that minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, and that the State may impose regulations to ensure standards as a condition of aid or recognition, but may not destroy the minority character of the institution.

• An early Presidential reference under Article 143.

2005

P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra

Articles 19 and 30 · No quotas in unaided colleges

A seven-judge bench held that the State cannot impose reservation or its own admission quotas on unaided private professional colleges, minority or non-minority. Parliament responded with the 93rd Amendment (Article 15(5)).

• Led to the 93rd Amendment.

1950

Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi

Pre-censorship of a journal is a restriction on the freedom of the press

Decided with Romesh Thappar, it struck down a pre-censorship order against the Organiser; together they prompted the First Amendment.

1958

Express Newspapers v. Union of India

The press is subject to general laws such as wage laws

Upheld the Working Journalists Act, holding that the press has no immunity from ordinary laws, though a law that directly curtails circulation would be invalid.

1960

Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India

Purely commercial advertisements are not protected speech

Upheld restrictions on advertising "magic remedies"; later modified by Tata Press (1995).

1995

Tata Press v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam

Commercial speech is protected under Article 19(1)(a)

Held that commercial advertisements are part of free speech, since the public has a right to receive commercial information.

1970

K.A. Abbas v. Union of India

Pre-censorship of films is valid

Upheld film censorship because films have a stronger impact than other media, while requiring clear guidelines.

1965

Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra

Lady Chatterley's Lover was held obscene under the Hicklin test

A bookseller's conviction for selling the unexpurgated novel was upheld, applying the Victorian Hicklin test of tendency to deprave and corrupt.

2014

Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal

The Hicklin test gives way to the contemporary community standards test for obscenity

Publication of a photograph of Boris Becker and his fiancée was held not obscene, applying community standards.

1957

Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Section 295A IPC upheld as a reasonable restriction

Held that punishing deliberate and malicious insults to religion is valid in the interests of public order.

1960

Superintendent, Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia

Restrictions must have a proximate connection with public order

Struck down a law punishing instigation not to pay irrigation dues, because the link with public order was too remote.

1966

Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar

"Law and order", "public order" and "security of the State" are concentric circles

Explained that law and order is the widest circle, public order a smaller one, and security of the State the smallest.

1988

Odyssey Communications v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana

The right to exhibit films on Doordarshan is part of free speech

Rejected an attempt to stop the telecast of a serial on superstition, holding that a film maker has a right to exhibit a film.

2019

Indibility Creative v. Government of West Bengal

The State cannot informally ban a film already certified by the CBFC

Awarded costs against West Bengal for the unofficial ban on the film Bhobishyoter Bhoot.

1952

State of Madras v. V.G. Row

Reasonableness of restrictions must be judged objectively, including procedure

Struck down a law allowing associations to be declared unlawful without judicial scrutiny, and set out the test of reasonableness.

1950

Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India

A single company can be a class by itself

Upheld a law taking over the management of the Sholapur mill, holding that a law may be valid even if it applies to one entity, given special circumstances.

1982

D.S. Nakara v. Union of India

Pensioners cannot be arbitrarily divided by the date of retirement

Held that dividing pensioners into classes for a liberalised pension scheme based on an arbitrary cut-off date violated Article 14.

1981

Air India v. Nergesh Meerza

Terminating air hostesses on their first pregnancy is arbitrary

Struck down the regulation ending an air hostess's service on her first pregnancy as manifestly unreasonable.

1975

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradeep Tandon

Reservation for rural areas is invalid; for hill and backward areas it is valid

Distinguished between areas that are genuinely backward and a blanket rural category.

1985

K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Five judges gave separate views on the criteria for backwardness

Justices set out differing approaches to identifying backward classes, foreshadowing Indra Sawhney.

2003

Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India

Institutional preference in postgraduate medical admissions upheld within limits

Upheld reservation for students of the same institution, while keeping it reasonable.

1975

Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh

A limited right to privacy can be read into Article 21

Upheld police surveillance regulations but recognised privacy, subject to compelling State interest.

1994

R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (Auto Shankar Case)

The press may publish matters based on public records without consent

Allowed publication of the autobiography of a death-row convict; public officials cannot sue for defamation over official conduct unless the statement is shown to be reckless.

1997

PUCL v. Union of India (Telephone Tapping)

Telephone tapping violates privacy unless done under procedural safeguards

Laid down safeguards for interception under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, including review committees.

1983

Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra

Safeguards for women in police custody

On a journalist's letter about custodial violence against women, the Court directed that women suspects be kept in separate lock-ups guarded by women constables.

1978

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (I)

Solitary confinement and bar fetters for undertrials restricted

Held that prisoners retain fundamental rights and that solitary confinement of prisoners awaiting execution is permissible only after all appeals are over.

1980

Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration

Handcuffing is the exception, not the rule

Held that handcuffing an undertrial is prima facie inhuman and must be justified by recorded reasons.

1995

Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India

The right to health of workers is part of Article 21

Directed measures to protect asbestos industry workers, recognising health and medical care as part of the right to life.

1996

Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The right to shelter is part of the right to life

Held that shelter, with adequate living space and basic amenities, is a fundamental right under Article 21.

1997

State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla

The right to health includes reimbursement of medical expenses for government employees

Held that the State's duty to provide health care includes reimbursing its employees' necessary medical expenses.

1996

Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal

Denial of emergency medical treatment by government hospitals violates Article 21

A man with head injuries was turned away by several government hospitals; the Court awarded compensation and directed improvements in emergency care.

2015

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

Aadhaar could not be made mandatory for benefits pending final decision

Interim orders restricted the use of Aadhaar to specified schemes while its validity was being decided.

2022

X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Delhi

Unmarried women are entitled to abortion up to 24 weeks like married women

Interpreting the MTP Rules, the Court held that excluding unmarried women violated Article 14, and that "marital rape" can count as rape for the purposes of the MTP Act.

2016

Devika Biswas v. Union of India

Sterilisation camps violated reproductive rights

Directed an end to mass sterilisation camps and recognised reproductive rights as part of Article 21.

2009

Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration

A woman's reproductive choice is part of personal liberty

Held that a woman with a mild intellectual disability could not be forced to terminate a pregnancy against her wishes.

2000

Church of God (Full Gospel) v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association

No religion requires worship that disturbs others through loudspeakers

Held that the right to religion does not include using loudspeakers that cause noise pollution.

1958

Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar

A total ban on the slaughter of cows is valid, but not of useless cattle

Upheld bans on slaughtering cows and useful cattle but struck down bans on slaughtering cattle past their useful age; later departed from in 2005.

2005

State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat

A total ban on slaughter of cows and progeny is valid

A seven-judge bench upheld Gujarat's total ban, reading Articles 48 and 51A(g) together.

1984

Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police

The tandava dance in public is not an essential practice of the Ananda Margis

Applied the essential practices test to deny protection to the public performance of the dance.

2015

Santhara and the Jain Community

The Supreme Court stayed a Rajasthan High Court ruling equating santhara with suicide

The Rajasthan High Court held santhara (the Jain practice of fasting unto death) punishable, but the Supreme Court stayed that judgment within weeks.

1963

T. Devadasan v. Union of India

The carry-forward rule breaching the 50% limit struck down

Held that carrying forward unfilled reserved vacancies so that reservation exceeded half the posts in a year violated Article 16(1).

1974

Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat

Minority institutions may be regulated but not taken over

A nine-judge bench held that regulations to ensure excellence are valid, but the State cannot interfere with the minority's right to administer its institutions.

1978

Charles Sobhraj v. Superintendent, Central Jail

Prisoners retain their fundamental rights

Held that imprisonment does not strip a prisoner of fundamental rights, and prison conditions are subject to judicial review.

1997

Gaurav Jain v. Union of India

Rehabilitation of children of sex workers

Directed measures to rescue and rehabilitate children of sex workers and prevent their exploitation.

2001

Murli S. Deora v. Union of India

Smoking in public places banned

Held that smoking in public places harms non-smokers' right to life and directed a ban until the law was enacted.

2002

Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India

Lawyers have no right to strike

A Constitution Bench held that advocates cannot go on strike or boycott courts, except in the rarest of cases for a token protest.

2009

Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India

Schools must be safe from fire and other hazards

After the 2004 Kumbakonam school fire in which 94 children died, the Court directed safety standards for schools under the right to education.

2011 and 2022

Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal

Sex workers are entitled to dignity

The Court recognised the right of sex workers to live with dignity and, in 2022, directed that police must not harass consenting adult sex workers.