1)A.K. Gopalan v.
State of Madras (1950) | MANU/SC/0012/1950
A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under the Preventive
Detention Act, 1950, without being given a reason for his detention or a
fair trial. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution, challenging his detention on the grounds that it violated his
fundamental rights, particularly:
Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression, Movement, and
Association)
Article 22 (Protection against arbitrary detention)
Gopalan argued that his detention was arbitrary and unconstitutional,
as it deprived him of his personal liberty without a proper legal process.
The case raised important questions about the scope of personal
liberty and the validity of preventive detention laws.
2)A K Kraipak V UOI:
In 1967, a selection board in Srinagar selected officers for promotion
based solely on records, without exams or interviews. Adverse entries in
officers' character rolls were not communicated earlier, violating state
instructions. After complaints, adverse remarks were later reviewed,
leading to some corrections and additional selections. Despite the review,
officers Basu, Baig, and Kaul were not selected. Basu, senior to
Naqishbund, had an unresolved appeal against his supersession. Kaul’s
appeal was rejected. Naqishbund, promoted in 1964 as Chief Conservator
of Forests, was not yet confirmed, and his seniority was disputed.
3)Anil Kapoor vs Simply Life India & Or:
The Delhi High Court order, downloaded on 22/09/2023, grants exemption
for filing a properly signed plaint, requiring compliance within four weeks.
It emphasizes adherence to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and DHC
(Original Side) Rules, 2018 for electronic documents. The Plaintiff, Anil
Kapoor Films Company, holds trademarks and has produced notable films
like Gandhi, My Father and Veere Di Wedding. The case involves alleged
unauthorized use of dialogues and the Plaintiff’s name. The order’s
authenticity can be verified via the Delhi High Court Order Portal using the
QR code.
4)Anuradha Bhasin V UOI:
In August 2019, the Jammu & Kashmir government issued a security
advisory, leading to the shutdown of internet, mobile networks, landlines,
and movement restrictions. Multiple petitions, including by Ghulam Nabi
Azad, challenged these measures. The Supreme Court directed the
government to ensure normalcy while considering national security. The
Solicitor General argued that movement was never fully restricted and
that schools had reopened. The Court examined the curtailment of
internet as a restriction on free speech, applying tests of
reasonableness and proportionality. The abrogation of Article 370
was defended as granting new rights to J&K citizens.
5. The Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) imposes a fine of 290
million euros on Uber. The Dutch DPA found that Uber transferred personal
data of European taxi drivers to the United States (US) and failed to
appropriately safeguard the data with regard to these transfers. According
to the Dutch DPA, this constitutes a serious violation of the General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR). In the meantime, Uber has
ended the violation.
6. The Big Brother Watch and Others v. The United Kingdom case
(ECHR, Grand Chamber, 25 May 2021) involved applications Nos.
58170/13, 62322/14, and 24960/15, filed by NGOs, journalists, and
individuals challenging the UK’s mass surveillance practices. The court
found that the UK’s bulk interception of communications violated Article 8
due to the lack of independent authorization, insufficient safeguards for
selectors, and unlawful access to metadata. It also ruled that the regime
failed to protect journalistic sources, breaching Article 10. However, the
intelligence-sharing system did not violate Article 8, as it had adequate
safeguards. The ruling required the UK to strengthen legal protections and
oversight in its surveillance practices.
7)C.B. Gautam vs Union Of India & Ors
The petitioner agreed to purchase a 253 sq. m. plot in Safdarjung
Enclave, New Delhi, from Jai Lal, who held leasehold rights under a
Delhi Development Authority (DDA) lease. Agreements were signed
in 1985 and 1986 for Rs. 16 lakhs, with an additional Rs. 3.4 lakhs
payable to the DDA. With Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act taking
effect in October 1986, the sale was reported. The Income Tax Authority
ordered compulsory purchase by the Central Government without
specific reasons. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing lack of
justification for the acquisition.
8. The CCI fined Meta and WhatsApp ₹213.14 crore (approximately $25.3
million)
The CCI ordered Meta to stop sharing user data with other Meta
companies for five years
The CCI directed WhatsApp to allow users to opt out of data sharing in
2029
The CCI directed WhatsApp to allow users to review and change their data
sharing choices in the app's Settings
The CCI directed WhatsApp to provide detailed explanations of what data
is shared with other Meta platforms
Why did the CCI take action?
The CCI found that the 2021 privacy policy violated the Competition Act,
2002
The CCI found that the policy imposed unfair terms for users
The CCI found that the policy created barriers for competitors in online
display advertising
The CCI found that the policy undermined user autonomy
9 In October 2024, the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) fined
LinkedIn Ireland €310 million for violations of the General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR). The investigation revealed that LinkedIn processed
users' personal data for behavioral analysis and targeted advertising
without a valid legal basis, breaching GDPR principles of lawfulness,
fairness, and transparency. Specifically, LinkedIn's reliance on user
consent was deemed insufficiently informed, and its interests were found
to override user rights and freedoms. In addition to the fine, the DPC
issued a reprimand and ordered LinkedIn to bring its data processing
activities into compliance with GDPR requirements. LinkedIn stated that
while it believed it had been compliant, it would work to adjust its
advertising practices to meet the DPC's directives.
10)Frank Vitus V NCB:
In May 2014, Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national, was arrested by the
Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. After being granted bail in May
2022, the court imposed conditions requiring him to drop a PIN on
Google Maps for location tracking and to obtain an assurance
certificate from the Nigerian High Commission. Vitus challenged
these conditions, leading the Supreme Court to rule in April 2024 that
such bail conditions violate the right to privacy under Article 21 of
the Constitution. The Court ordered the deletion of these conditions,
emphasizing that constant surveillance infringes upon fundamental rights.
11)India v association of democratic reforms:
In 2002, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) filed a public
interest litigation seeking greater transparency in the electoral process.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that voters have a fundamental right
to know the criminal antecedents, assets, liabilities, and educational
qualifications of electoral candidates, deriving this right from Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and
expression. The Court directed the Election Commission of India to
collect and disclose such information, emphasizing that an informed
electorate is essential for the proper functioning of democracy
12)Jagdish Prasad Saxena vs State Of Madhya Bharat
Jagdish Prasad Saxena, a distillery inspector in Madhya Pradesh, was
dismissed from service without a formal inquiry after being accused of
complicity in the illegal issue of liquor. Despite a chargesheet, no
opportunity was given to cross-examine witnesses or contest allegations.
The Supreme Court held that a proper departmental inquiry is essential,
ruling that the failure to conduct one violated Article 311(2) of the
Constitution. The dismissal order was quashed, and the appeal was
allowed, emphasizing that procedural fairness in disciplinary actions
against public servants is crucial.
13)Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. Vs. Union of India (2017) |
MANU/SC/1044/2017
1. Facts:
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired High Court judge, filed a writ petition
challenging the Aadhaar scheme introduced by the Government of India,
arguing that it violated the right to privacy. The petition contended that
the collection and use of biometric data by the government amounted to
an infringement of fundamental rights. The case was referred to a nine-
judge bench to determine whether the right to privacy is a fundamental
right under the Indian Constitution.
14)Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru Vs. State of Kerala
(1973) | MANU/SC/0445/1973
1. Facts:
Swami Kesavananda Bharati, the head of Edneer Mutt in Kerala,
challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which imposed restrictions
on the management and ownership of religious property. He filed a writ
petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, arguing that the
law violated his fundamental rights, particularly those under Articles 25
(Freedom of Religion) and 26 (Freedom to Manage Religious
Affairs). The case led to a broader constitutional question about the
extent of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, especially
concerning fundamental rights.
2. Issue:
Whether Parliament has unlimited power to amend the
Constitution under Article 368, or if there are inherent
limitations that prevent the destruction of the Constitution’s
basic structure.
3. Rule:
Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, which grants
Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.
Previous landmark cases:
o Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): Held that
Parliament could amend fundamental rights.
o Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965):
Reaffirmed Shankari Prasad.
o Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967): Ruled that
Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights.
4. Application:
The largest-ever constitutional bench of 13 judges examined the extent
of Parliament's amending power. The Court ruled that while
Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter
or destroy the “Basic Structure”. The ruling overturned Golak Nath,
affirming that amendments can apply to fundamental rights but only if
they do not violate the Constitution’s core principles, such as
democracy, secularism, and judicial review.
5. Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, in a 7:6 majority, established the Basic Structure
Doctrine, holding that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a
way that destroys its fundamental framework. This doctrine became
a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, ensuring that core democratic
values remain protected despite legislative changes.
15)Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd v Union of India
Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited (MBL) received permission in 2011 to
uplink/downlink Media One. In 2016, MHA denied security clearance, but
MIB renewed Media One’s downlinking license in 2019 while cancelling
Media One Life’s permission. In 2021, MBL applied for renewal, but MHA
again denied security clearance. MIB revoked Media One’s permission on
January 31, 2022. MBL challenged this in court, arguing against the
secrecy of reasons. The High Court upheld the revocation, relying on
sealed cover documents. On March 15, 2022, the Supreme Court stayed
MIB’s order, allowing Media One to operate pending final adjudication.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme
Court of India expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right
to Life and Personal Liberty). Maneka Gandhi's passport was
impounded by the government without providing her reasons.
She challenged this, arguing that it violated her fundamental
rights. The Court ruled that any law affecting personal liberty
must be just, fair, and reasonable, linking Articles 14, 19, and
21. This case established the principle of due process in Indian
law, ensuring that no person’s liberty could be taken away
arbitrarily by the state.
17)manohar lal sharma v uoi:
In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (2021), a petition was filed in the
Supreme Court seeking an investigation into allegations that Pegasus
spyware was used to surveil journalists, activists, and politicians. The
petitioners argued this violated fundamental rights, including privacy and
free speech. The Union Government refused to confirm or deny the
allegations, citing national security. The Court appointed an independent
expert committee to investigate, emphasizing the importance of
protecting citizens’ rights against unlawful surveillance. The case
highlighted concerns about government accountability, digital privacy,
and the need for judicial oversight in matters of national security.
18)Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union of India (1980) |
MANU/SC/0080/1980
1. Facts:
Minerva Mills, a textile company in Karnataka, was nationalized under The
Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974. The company
challenged the constitutional validity of certain amendments introduced
by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, which significantly
expanded Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, giving primacy
to Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) over Fundamental
Rights and restricting judicial review. The petitioners argued that these
amendments violated the Basic Structure Doctrine established in
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
19)Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) | MANU/SC/0476/1992
1. Facts:
Mohini Jain, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, was denied admission to a private
medical college in Karnataka because she could not afford the high
capitation fee charged for non-Karnataka students. The Karnataka
government had issued a notification allowing private colleges to charge a
high capitation fee from non-resident students while subsidizing education
for Karnataka residents. Mohini Jain filed a petition challenging the validity
of this policy, arguing that it violated her right to education under the
Indian Constitution.
20)Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India
In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme
Court addressed the issue of telephone tapping and its violation of the
right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The case challenged
the lack of procedural safeguards in Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph
Act, 1885. The Court held that telephone tapping is a serious invasion of
privacy and laid down guidelines to regulate its use, including prior
approval by a competent authority. This judgment reinforced the
constitutional protection of privacy and established safeguards against
arbitrary state surveillance.
21 The case Ridge v Baldwin (1964) was a landmark UK House of Lords
decision on procedural fairness in administrative law. The Chief Constable
of Brighton, Charles Ridge, was dismissed by the Brighton Police
Authority, led by Councillor Baldwin, following his acquittal of criminal
charges. The dismissal occurred without giving Ridge a chance to defend
himself. The House of Lords ruled that the dismissal was unlawful because
Ridge was denied *natural justice*, particularly the right to a fair hearing.
This case established that procedural fairness applies to administrative
decisions affecting individuals’ rights, influencing UK and
Commonwealth public law.
22)S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
the Supreme Court addressed the dismissal of state governments under
Article 356 of the Constitution. The case arose when the President's Rule
was imposed in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and other states.
The Court ruled that the President's power under Article 356 is not
absolute and is subject to judicial review. It held that a floor test in the
Assembly is the best method to determine a government's majority. The
judgment strengthened federalism by restricting the arbitrary use of
President’s Rule to dismiss elected state governments.
23)Santosh Kumar v UOI
In 2009, Santosh Kumar Singh was appointed as a Constable in the
Railway Protection Force on compassionate grounds. During his training, it
was discovered that he was facing serious criminal charges, including
Sections 304-B and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
related to the unnatural death of his wife. Consequently, in 2010, Singh
was discharged from service under Rules 52.2 and 67.2 of the Railway
Protection Force Rules, 1987. After his acquittal in 2015, he sought
reinstatement, but the authorities declined. The Supreme Court upheld
the discharge, emphasizing the importance of integrity and character in
law enforcement roles
24)Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
the petitioner, Shayara Bano, challenged the practice of triple talaq (talaq-
e-bid’ah) after her husband divorced her using this method. She argued
that it was unconstitutional as it violated her fundamental rights under
Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25. The Supreme Court, in a 3:2 majority, declared
triple talaq unconstitutional, ruling that it was arbitrary and not protected
under Article 25 (freedom of religion). The judgment was a landmark step
in advancing Muslim women’s rights in India, leading to the enactment of
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
25)Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck
down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which
criminalized offensive or annoying online speech. The provision was
challenged for being vague and unconstitutional. The Court ruled that it
violated Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and was not
a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). The judgment upheld the
importance of free speech in a democracy and distinguished between
discussion, advocacy, and incitement, holding that only incitement to
violence can be restricted. This landmark case reinforced digital freedom
of expression in India.
26)State of M. P. v Thakur Bharat Singh
In State of M.P. v. Thakur Bharat Singh (1967), the Madhya Pradesh
government issued an order under Section 3(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Public Security Act, 1959, restricting Thakur Bharat Singh’s movements
and political activities. He challenged the order, arguing it violated his
fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution. The
Supreme Court held that the order was unconstitutional as it imposed
unreasonable restrictions on his freedom of movement and expression
without proper legal justification. The judgment reaffirmed that executive
orders must conform to constitutional guarantees and cannot arbitrarily
infringe upon fundamental rights.
27)State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the West Bengal
government tried Anwar Ali Sarkar under a Special Court Act, which
allowed speedier trials for certain offenses. He challenged this, arguing it
violated Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution. The Supreme
Court ruled that the law arbitrarily classified offenses without a rational
basis, leading to discrimination. The judgment emphasized that any
classification under Article 14 must be reasonable and not violate the
principle of equality before the law. This case reinforced the doctrine of
reasonable classification and struck down the law as unconstitutional.
28)Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (1981), the government
took over the management of Swadeshi Cotton Mills under the Industries
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, without giving prior notice to the
company. Swadeshi Cotton Mills challenged the takeover, arguing that it
violated the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the
right to be heard (audi alteram partem) is a fundamental principle, even in
cases of government takeovers. However, in urgent situations, prior notice
may not be required. The case reinforced the importance of natural justice
in administrative actions affecting property rights.
29)Vinit Kumar v. CBI (2019), the Bombay High Court ruled that
unauthorized telephone interceptions violate the right to privacy under
Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner challenged the interception of
his calls, arguing that it lacked proper authorization under Section 5(2) of
the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The court held that interceptions must
meet the criteria of public emergency or public safety and follow due
process. Since the orders authorizing interception in this case were
unjustified, the court quashed them and directed the destruction of
recorded conversations, reinforcing privacy rights against unlawful
surveillance.
30)Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004), also known
as the Best Bakery Case, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the need
for a fair trial and witness protection. Zahira Sheikh, a key witness in the
2002 Gujarat riots case, retracted her statements multiple times, citing
threats and intimidation. The Supreme Court criticized the Gujarat
government for failing to ensure justice and transferred the trial to
Maharashtra. The case reinforced the importance of witness protection,
fair investigation, and the judiciary’s duty to uphold justice, even in cases
involving state authorities.
