Landmark judicial decisions changed the Constitution as well as everyday life.

Their impact still

echoes.
Champakam Dorairajan Vs State of Madras !"
#ell $efore %rjun Singh& this case concerning admissions of $ackward classes to educational
institutions led '.(. %m$edkar& then the law minister& to pilot the first)ever amendment to the
Constitution.
*.M. +anavati Vs State of Maharashtra !,-
The crime of passion& where Commander *awas Maneckshaw +anavati murdered his wife.s lover&
marked the end of jury trials in /ndia when the officer was let off.
0olaknath Vs State of 1unja$ !,2
The Supreme Court made fundamental rights immune from amendment until 1arliament reasserted
its authority in !2 $y amending %rticles 3 and 3,4 of the Constitution.
Madhav 5iwaji (ao Scindia Vs 6nion of /ndia !2-
The Supreme Court rejected a !2- presidential order a$olishing titles& privileges and privy purses
of /ndia.s erstwhile princely rulers.
*esavananda 'harati Vs State of *erala !23
/n !2& 1arliament empowered itself to amend any part of the Constitution. 7owever& the Supreme
Court laid down that such amendments could not destroy the .$asic structure. of the Constitution)
fundamental rights are part of the .$asic structure..
7immat Lal Shah Vs Commissioner of 1olice !23
/t dealt with a common citi8en.s right to hold pu$lic meetings on streets and the e9tent to which the
state could regulate this right.
Courtroom Drama
/ndira 0andhi Vs (aj +arain !2"
/ndira 0andhi declared :mergency after $eing ordered $y the %llaha$ad 7igh Court to vacate her
seat for malpractice. The Supreme Court later overturned the decision.
%.D.M. 5a$alpur Vs S. Shukla !2,
The Supreme Court declared the right to move court under %rticles ;& < and << would remain
suspended during the :mergency.
Maneka 0andhi Vs 6nion of /ndia !24
The case caused a huge uproar over the definition of freedom of speech.The court ruled that the
procedure must $e fair and the law must not violate other fundamental rights.
Minerva Mills Vs 6nion of /ndia !4-
The Supreme Court again applied the .$asic structure. theory& saying that social welfare laws could
not cur$ fundamental rights.
(amesh Dalal Vs 6nion of /ndia !44
The case dealt with the su$ject of pre)1artition communal violence& and how its depiction was not
in violation of Constitutional articles.
(ajan Case !4
/nvolving the torture and death of a final year engineering student in custody in *erala& the case led
to the resignation of *. *arunakaran& then the home minister& and imprisonment of the officers
accused.
*ehar Singh Vs Delhi %dministration !4;
*ehar Singh was accused of taking part in the murder of /ndira 0andhi. Though the death sentence
was upheld $y the Supreme Court& its accuracy has often $een =uestioned.
'a$ri Masjid& %yodhya Case !!;
The case =uestioned the Constitutional validity of the ac=uisition of a certain area adjoining the
disputed site. The Supreme Court upheld status =uo on the disputed structures.
'est 'akery Case <--,
The controversial trial came to an end with the conviction of nine people. The case related to ;
deaths in an arson attack on the 'est 'akery in Vadodara in <--<. % retrial was ordered in <--;
after a local court ac=uitted all < accused.
Shah 'ano Case !4"
The case& related to the issue of Muslim personal law& caused a furore as the court awarded Shah
'ano a maintenance allowance after divorce.
Courtroom 5udgment
/ndira Sawhney Vs 6nion of /ndia !!<
The Supreme Court upheld the implementation of recommendations made $y the Mandal
Commission. /t also defined the >creamy layer> criteria and reiterated that the =uota could not
e9ceed "- per cent.
St. Stephen.s College Vs 6niversity of Delhi !!<
The identity of St. Stephen.s College as a minority)run institution was put under the scanner as it
was receiving grant)in)aid from the 0overnment. The court ruled that grants could not change the
minority character of an institution.
S.(. 'ommai Vs 6nion of /ndia !!;
The case laid down the guidelines in proving a majority under %rticle 3",. The recent %rjun Munda
case judgement was also passed with reference to the 'ommai case.
(. (ajagopal Vs State of Tamil +adu !!;
The case decided that the right to privacy su$sisted even if a matter $ecame one of pu$lic record.
The right to $e let alone is part of personal li$erty.
1.%. /namdar Vs State of Maharashtra <--"
The Supreme Court stated that >neither the policy of reservation can $e enforced $y the state nor
any =uota of admissions $e carved out in private educational institutions>.
Sarla Mudgal Vs 6nion of /ndia !!"
The Supreme Court held that a second marriage solemnised while the first e9isted was a punisha$le
offence& though it did not $ecome null and void.
5amaat)e)/slami 7ind Vs 6nion of /ndia !!"
The association was $anned for unlawful activities. 'ut the decision was reversed due to lack of
evidence.
Ministry of /?' Vs Cricket %ssociation of 'engal !!"
The case& which dealt with the $roadcast of the 7ero Cup& was the first tussle involving the telecast
of an international event $y a private $roadcaster.
Vishaka Vs State of (ajasthan !!2
@or the first time& se9ual harassment& including se9ually coloured remarks and physical contact& was
e9plicitly and legally defined as an unwelcome se9ual gesture. /t stated that every instance of se9ual
harassment is a violation of fundamental rights.
Samatha Vs State of %1 !!2
The Supreme Court said government land& tri$al land& and forest land in scheduled areas could not
$e leased to non)tri$als or private companies for mining or industrial operations. Such activity can
only $e done $y tri$al people or $y a government undertaking.
(upan Deol 'ajaj Vs *. 1. S. 0ill !!4
*.1.S. 0ill& former chief of 1unja$ 1olice& was fined (s.<." lakh in lieu of three months. rigorous
imprisonment for slapping senior /%S officer (upan Deol 'ajaj on the posterior.
(epresentation of the 1eople A%mendmentB %ct <--<
The judgement of a three)mem$er 'ench ordered candidates contesting elections to declare their
assets and all criminal cases pending against them at the time of filing of nominations.
Tamil +adu Vs Suhas *atti <--;
The first case involving conviction under the /nformation Technology %ct& <---& related to the
posting of o$scene messages on the /nternet.
Cm 1rakash Vs Dil 'ahar <--,
/n a severe deterrent to incidents of rape& the Supreme Court held that a rape accused could $e
convicted on the sole evidence of the victim& even if medical evidence did not prove rape
Top - Most /nteresting /ndian Court Cases
/ndia has the largest constitution in the world no dou$t& $ut due to its comple9 nature& people have
time and again found loopholes to come around. 7ere are Top - Most /nteresting /ndian Court
Cases discussing such.








-. /+% trials
/+% Trial)/nteresting /ndian Court Cases
+ot many /ndians are ac=uainted with this case& which had a profound impact on /ndiaDs freedom
struggle. /+% A/ndian +ational %rmyB was a force that comprised of /ndian 1risoners of #ar a$road&
and was formed $y Su$hash Chandra 'ose E to secure /ndiaDs independence from the 'ritish. #hen
it was dis$anded& /+%Ds top officers were tried $y the 'ritish on charges of Sedition etc. Seeing that
that there was a wave of sympathy throughout the country for these $rave officers& the /ndian
+ational Congress decided to form a team of legal stalwarts to prepare a thorough legal defense for
the officers. Such was the impact of this move& that Lord #avell /ndiaDs then Viceroy& promulgated
an ordinance with retrospective effect to confer jurisdiction on court)martials in cases related to
1o#Ds.
The pinnacle of this trial was the legal ingenuity demonstrated $y 'hula$hai Desai. DesaiDs primary
argument was that 'ose had formed a provisional government of /ndia& and since the %9is powers
had recogni8ed that government& the officers of the /+% were representing their country& and not a
re$el force. Thus& Desai argued& the municipal law in this case& the /ndian 1enal Code was not
applica$le and they ought to $e tried under /nternational Law. 7e placed enormous evidence on
record to esta$lish that the /+% was representing the /ndian StateF and thus& the officers were acting
in furtherance of their duty as /ndia and 0reat 'ritain were at war. :ven though he lost the case& he
earned his place in the pantheon of legends.

!. The %yodhya Cases
%yodhya Cases)/nteresting /ndian Court Cases
Cne of the most controversial cases in /ndian constitutional history is the %yodhya case. /n fact in
one of the cases related to %yodhya& one party was Shri (am himself. %ny way there are four
principal title suits pending $efore the Lucknow $ench of the %llaha$ad 7igh Court over the
disputed land at %yodhya. The legal $attle over the 4- feet $y ;- feet land far predates the V71
movement to construct the (am temple.
The first case was filed in 5anuary 44" $y Mahant (aghu$ir Das seeking permission to construct a
temple on the cha$utara Aa raised platformB outside the 'a$ri Masjid was dismissed. The mandir)
masjid issue then remained in suspended animation until the night of Decem$er <<& !;!& when
trespassers $roke into the 'a$ri Masjid and installed an idol of (am. Su$se=uently& the city
magistrate attached the premises. /n the ne9t < years& four title suits followed Aall still pending
$efore the courtsB. These include the one filed in Decem$er !"- $y Mahant (amchandra Das
1aramhans& who is now the chairman of the (am 5anma$hoomi +yas and another $y the Sunni
Central 'oards of #a=fs& 61& in Decem$er !,. %ll the four suits were clu$$ed together and
$rought $efore the %llaha$ad 7igh Court& which $egan recording oral evidence in 5uly !!,.
The case has always moved at a snailDs pace. Cut of the -- witnesses& only <3 have testified till
now. Cn an average& the e9amination of a witness takes a fortnight. Says former Delhi 7igh Court
chief justice (ajinder SacharG H/t is really impossi$le to find whether (am was $orn on that e9act
piece of land. The matter will go on and on for years.I
The 6nion government on March " filed a petition $efore the Lucknow $ench of the %llaha$ad
7igh Court to e9pedite the case $y holding daily hearings. @urther& it suggested that the court
appoint a commissioner or a judge to record the statements of the witnesses. 'ut all this does not
necessarily mean a speedy settlement of the issue. The case& fear legal e9perts& could $e a long)
drawn one.

4. 'hawal case E The 1rincely /mposter
'hawal case)/nteresting /ndian Court Cases
The 'hawal Sanyasi case has $een one of the strangest among judicial cases in 'ritish /ndia. /n the
7indu way of life& a Sanyasi is a person who has taken JSanyasD& or entered the final stage of his life
in which he is to seek the Truth and turn his $ack upon the material word. /n more popular parlance&
any garden)variety sadhu or mendicant may $e called a sanyasi. 'hawal was a large 8amindari near
Dacca Anow Dhaka& 'angladeshB. /t was& as with the case of many similar Kamindaries& closely
supervised $y the 'ritish $ureaucracy. /t had an :nglishman as a manager. %fter the Kamindar died&
it passed to his three sons. %ll led lives of ease. The second son& (amendra& died in Darjeeling in
!-"& apparently due to syphilis& and was $elieved to have $een cremated. 7e left his widow&
'i$havati& $ehind him. Several years later& in !<& a Sadhu appeared in Dacca. Soon people
noticed many resem$lances $etween him and the supposedly dead (amendra. 5yotirmayee& one of
his sisters was convinced that the sadhu was indeed her $rother. Several educated /ndians too were
convinced of his identity. The 'ritish official world& on the other hand& looked upon him as a
pretender. 'i$havati refused to accept him as her hus$and. The claimant AsadhuB claimed his L3rd
share from the revenues of the 8amindari. The Court of #ards which was administering the
8amindari refused the claim and the matter went to the court. @rom the very $eginning there was a
clear division $etween the 'ritish officialdom and the 'engali elite& the latter siding with the
claimant. The claimant filed a suit in !3-.
The judgment in the first trial went in favor of the claimant. The Court of #ards appealed to the
Calcutta 7igh #ards. %fter some delay caused $y the Second #orld #ar& which kept one of
assigned judges stranded in London& the 7igh Court too found in favor of the claimant in !;-.
'i$havati appealed to the 1rivy Council in London. The 1rivy Council ruled in favor of the
claimant on 5uly 3-& !;,. The judgment was telegraphed to Calcutta the ne9t day.
That very day the winnerLclaimant went to the *ali temple to offer prayers upon his victory and
suffered a stroke there. 7e died two days later& which& according to 'i$havti& was the divinely
ordained punishment for the imposter.

2. %DM 5a$alpur v Shivakant Shukla Case& !2,
7. (. *hanna)/nteresting /ndian Court Cases
%DM 5a$alpur V Shivkant Shukla is one of the landmark cases in /ndian constitutional history. /ts
judgment came on <4th %pril !2,. This day is known to $e the $lackest day of /ndiaDs
constitutional history. (ight to move to any court for enforcement of any right conferred $y %rticles
;& < and << was suspended during the emergency of !2" $y a presidential order. The
maintaina$ility of this order was challenged in this case. Several high courts held it not
maintaina$le while Supreme CourtDs ; judges out of " declared otherwise and concluded it to $e
maintaina$le and valid e9ercise under emergency provisions of /ndian constitution. %ny$ody who
was sought to $e a political threat was detained without trial and sent to prison under the M/S%& a
preventive detention act on the ground of maintaining the internal security in the country. This was
case where an attorney general of /ndia wrote& :ven if life was taken away illegally& courts are
helpless. @or the disagreeing opinion& 7. (. *hanna 5 lost his possi$ility of $ecoming the C.5. of
/ndia when he was the senior most person eligi$le for it. 7is 5unior 'eg 5. $ecame instead. 1.+.
'hagwati 5 pleads guilty for the judgement of this case after 3- years. +ow you see how politics
influence the lives of common people devastatingly. This case has many strange& tempestuous facts
and statements of judges. /t was distrustful judgement& a holocaust to the fundamental rights of
people in disguise.

,. 7immat Lal Shah v. Commissioner of 1olice& !23
1u$lic 0athering)/nteresting /ndian Court Cases
This case was recently referenced in the %nna 7a8are anti)corruption movement when Section ;;
of the /1C Aunlawful assem$lyB was imposed $y the Delhi 1olice and the lawyer team of Shanti and
1rashant 'hushan argued successfully in the Supreme Court over the unconstitutional nature of this
action. The original case dealt with a common citi8enDs right to hold pu$lic meetings on streets and
the e9tent to which the state could regulate this right. @reedom of e9pression and assem$ly is an
essential element of democratic system. %t the root of this system lies the citi8ensD right to meet
face to face to discuss pro$lems social& religious or political. This right was upheld in this case.

". The Shah 'ano Case& !4"
Tala=)/nteresting /ndian Court Cases
Shah 'ano& a ,< year old woman from /ndore was divorced $y her hus$and in !24. 6na$le to
support herself and her five children& she moved to courts to $e granted maintenance from her e9)
hus$and. Seven years and several judgments later& the Supreme Court ruled in favor of granting
Shah 'ano alimony. Largely seen as a threat to Sharia law $y some Muslims& what followed a
de$ate over the constitutionality of including different marriage and personal laws for different
religion& and resulted in the passing of the Muslim #omen A1rotection of (ights on DivorceB %ct&
!4,& $y the government.
The case was significant for several reasons. /n giving its judgment& the Court ordered maintenance
with an upper limit of (s. "-- monthly& under Section <" of the Code of Criminal 1rocedure&
!23& which applies to all citi8ens regardless of caste or religion. %lthough seen $y many as a
secular judgment& it invoked a strong reaction from the Muslim community& which felt that the
judgment was an encroachment on Muslim Sharia law. The $acklash from the Muslim community
prompted the government to $egin parliamentary procedures that& in essence& overturned the
Supreme CourtDs decision. The Muslim #omen %ct& !4,& was passed amidst great controversy and
de$ate. Many argued that it was a way to appease the minority group that was threatening agitation.
Shah 'anoDs case $rought the need for a secular 6niform Civil Code into the limelight again. To
date& however& individual 1ersonal Laws $ased on religion are still in effect. The case remains a
ground)$reaking one in /ndian divorce law and is often used as a $enchmark $y the courts.

;. State of 6ttar 1radesh vs. (aj +arain& !2"
/ndira 0andhi)/nteresting /ndian Court Cases
(uling on the case that had $een filed $y the defeated opposition candidate (aj +arain& 5ustice
5agmohanlal Sinha declared then)1M /ndira 0andhi guilty of electoral malpractices& invalidated her
win from (ae 'areilly and $arred her from holding elected office for si9 years. The decision caused
a political storm in /ndia that led to the imposition of a state of emergency $y /ndiraDs government
from !2" to !22. The decision had galvani8ed opposition parties and strikes $y la$our and trade
unions& student unions and government unions swept across the country. 1rotests led $y
5ayaprakash +arayan and Morarji Desai flooded the streets of Delhi close to the 1arliament $uilding
and the 1rime MinisterDs residence. The government argued that the political disorder was a threat
to national security. 6sing the sweeping powers granted $y the :mergency decree& thousands of
opposition leaders and activists were arrested& press censorship was introduced and elections were
postponed. During this period& /ndira 0andhiDs Congress A(B used its parliamentary majority to
amend the /ndian Constitution and overwrite the law that she was later found guilty of violating.

3. *esavananda 'harati vs State of *erala& !23
/ndian Constituiton)/nteresting /ndian Court Cases
This case is now known as the case that saved the /ndian democracy. Cn %pril <;& !23& Chief
5ustice Sikri and < judges of the Supreme Court assem$led to deliver the most important judgment
in its history. The hard work that had gone into the preparation of this case was $reathtaking.
Literally hundreds of cases had $een cited and the then %ttorney)0eneral had made a comparative
chart analy8ing the provisions of the Constitutions of 2 different countries. %ll this effort was to
answer just one main =uestionG Hwas the power of 1arliament to amend the Constitution unlimitedMI
/n other words& could 1arliament alter& amend& a$rogate any part of the Constitution even to the
e9tent of taking away all fundamental rightsM The judgment revealed a sharply divided court and&
$y a wafer)thin majority of 2),& it was held that 1arliament could amend any part of the
Constitution so long as it did not alter or amend Hthe $asic structure or essential features of the
Constitution.I This was the inherent and implied limitation on the amending power of 1arliament.
This $asic structure doctrine& as future events showed A/ndira 0andhi attempting to hijack /ndian
democracyB& saved /ndian democracy and *esavananda 'harati will always occupy a hallowed
place in our constitutional history.

<. *. M. +anavati vs State of Maharashtra& !"!
*. M. +anavati)/nteresting /ndian Court Cases
This was a high)profile upper class crime of passion& where *awas Manekshaw +anavati& a +aval
Commander& was tried for the murder of 1rem %huja& his wifeDs lover. The incident received
unprecedented media coverage and +anavati was at the receiving end of a huge amount of pu$lic
and community support. +anavati was initially declared not guilty 4) $y a jury& $ut the verdict was
dismissed $y the 'om$ay 7igh Court on referral and the case was retried as a $ench trial. +anavati
was convicted of culpa$le homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment. This case was the last to $e
heard as a jury trial in /ndia& as the government a$olished jury trials as a result of the case. Many
see this as a progressive step in our justice system as decisions of juries are often colored $y societal
values and norms. Cn the side note& (am 5ethmalani& now a prominent lawyer and '51 politician&
conducted the prosecution in what was one of his first high)profile cases.

. Lal 'ihari& The 6ndead /ndian
Lal 'ihari)/nteresting /ndian Court Cases
/n !2,& when a teenager named Lal 'ihari approached a $ank to approve a loan& he was informed
that he was actually dead. /t took Lal 'ihari 4 years to get his life and his land $ack. During that
time& he added the word Mritak or Dead& to his name and to prove that he was alive sought arrest&
tried to run for parliament& kidnapped the son of his uncle& who had stolen his property& threatened
murder& insulted judges& threw leaflets listing his complaints at legislators in the state assem$ly and
demanded a widowDs pension for his wife. :ach time he was either $eaten up $y police or re$uked
for wasting officialsD time. 6na$le to make headway& Lal 'ihari& The Dead sought the company of
other ghosts in 6ttar 1radesh and found an entire underworld of the deceased and dispossessed. /t
was only in !!;& 4 years after $eing declared dead& that %8amgarh district magistrate& a 7ausla
1rasad Verma& declared Lal 'ihari finally alive once again and also returned his land to him
/mportant Supreme Court Cases
#hen one talks a$out the judicial activism in /ndia the following Supreme Court judgments come
to mind.
. 0olaknath Vs. the state of 1unja$
/n a land mark judgment Supreme Court made it clear that no constitutional amendments can $e
made on the part /// of the constitution and there $y fundamental rights cannot $e a$ridged $y the
legislature. 'y this pronouncement the Supreme Court has retraced its own judgment in Shankari
1rasad case and Sajjan Singh vs. state of (ajasthan case that the fundamental rights can $e
amended.
To remove the difficulties in the process the government in the <;th amendment amended article
3,4 empowering the legislature the power to amend the constitution.
<. *eshavananda 'harti Vs. the state of *erala
/n this landmark judgment Supreme Court first kicked the 7ornetDs nest in the name of the $asic
structure of constitution. /n this case the 0olaknath case was over ruled and parliament regained the
power of amending $ut Supreme Court e9plicitly said that the legislature $y virtue of the amending
power cannot change the $asic structure of the constitution. 'ut what constitutes the $asic structure
was not specified. To remove the constitutional hurdles in an amendment the government inserted
clause ; and " in the article 3,4 which mentions that limited power of amendment is a $asic
structure of constitution.
3. Minnerva Mills vs. the union of /ndia and other states
/n this case the Supreme Court over ruled that amending power is a $asic structure of constitution.
'y this time the legislative and the judiciary in /ndia were at loggerheads.
;. Sunil 'atra vs. Delhi government
/n this case Supreme Court reinterpreted the writ of 7a$eas corpus as not only producing a person
in the court $ut also preventing a person jailed from the inhuman treatment in the prison.
". M. C. Mehta vs. the state of Tamil +adu
/n this case Supreme Court not only pronounced that deployment of children in ha8ardous factories
is unlawful $ut also provided various guidelines for the children welfare.