1. SR. Bommai v.

UOI, AIR 1994 SC 1918

एस.आर. बोम्मई बनाम संघ
Features of Constitution ➔ Secularism is the basic structure of the Constitution.
➔ Indian Constitution is Federal.
Preamble ➔ SC reiterated the view held in Keshavananda Bharti case and held
that
➔ Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution.
F.R. (Religion) ✓ Indian Constitution embodies positive concept of secularism.
✓ In matters of religion, the State is neutral and treats every religion
equally.
Emergency SC held that judicial review of Presidential proclamation is permissible .
Issued Guidelines w.r.t. Article 356:
(1) Proclamation dissolving State Legislative Assembly is subject to judicial review,
(2) President's rule cannot be imposed on the ground of political considerations; Recent
and landmark Case Laws.
(3) Imposition of President's rule and dissolution of State Assembly cannot be done
together;
(4) State Assembly can only be dissolved after Parliament approves the proclamation.
(5) Existence of materials is a pre-condition to form the basis of satisfaction for imposition
of President's rule.

2. Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549:

राम जवाया कपूर बनाम पंजाब
Features of ➔ Our Constitution has adopted the system of Parliamentary government of
Constitution England.
➔ Basic principle is that the President is the Constitutional Head of the executive
while the actual executive powers are vested in the Council of Ministers.
➔ The federal principle or doctrine of separation of power is not incorporated in
the Constitution in the strict and rigid form.
Executive SC held that the President has been made a formal or constitutional head of the
executive and the real executive powers are vested in the Council of Ministers.
Ordinarily the executive power connotes the residue of governmental functions
that remain after legislative and judicial functions are taken away.
Executive power is not confined to the administration of laws already enacted but
it includes the determination of government policies, maintenance of law and
order, foreign policy etc.

3. Aruna Roy v. UOI, AIR 2002 SC 3176

अरुणा रॉय बनाम संघ
Features of ✓ Secularism is the basic structure of the Constitution.
Constitution ✓ SC held that the secularism has a positive meaning and it means to develop
understanding and respect towards different religion
F.R. ➔ SC held that study of religion in school is not against secular philopshy of the
(Religion) Constitution.
➔ Secularism is susceptible to positive meaning i.e. developing understanding and respect
towards different religions.

Page-1
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
 4. L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI, AIR 1997 SC 1125
एल चंद्र कुमार बनाम संघ
Features of Constitution SC has held that exclusion of jurisdiction of courts is unconstitutional. Judicial
review is the basic structure of the Constitution and it can never be excluded.
DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE. SEVERABILITY. The SC reiterated that the power of the judicial review given to the SC and the
JUDICIAL REVIEW High Courts under Article 32 and 226 is the basic structure of the Constitution
and it can not be terminated by statutory amendment under Article 368.
RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 and SC under Article 32 is inviolable
REMEDIES AND PUBLIC INTEREST basic structure of the Constitution.
LITIGATION

5. In Re Berubari Union case, AIR 1960 SC 845

रे बेरुबारी संघ मामले में
Preamble SC held that Preamble is the sum and substance of the features of the Constitution.
Preamble represents the quintessence, the philosophy, the ideals, the soul or spirit of the entire
Constitution.
UNION AND The power of Parliament to diminish the area of State does not cover cession of Indian territory
TERRITORY to a foreign State.
The agreement could only be implemented by an amendment to the Constitution under Article
368.

6. Sajjan Singh v. Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845

सज्जन ससिंह बनाम राजस्थान
Preamble The SC held that the Preamble is not the part of the Constitution.
AMENDMENT SC approved the majority judgment in Shankari Prasad's case and held that
'amendment of the Constitution' means amendment of all parts of the
Constitution.

7. Romesh Thapar v. Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124

रोमेश थापर बनाम मद्रास
DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE. SEVERABILITY. SC held that where the law authorizes restrictions on F.R. which is wide
JUDICIAL REVIEW enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits
provided by the Constitution and it is not possible to separate the two
then the whole law is to be struck down.
RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES SC is protector and guarantor of F.R. and it cannot refuse to entertain
AND PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION applications seeking protection against infringement of such rights.

8. Keshavnanda Bharti v. Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

केशवानंद भारती बनाम केरल
PREAMBLE SC held that where the law authorizes restrictions on F.R. which is wide enough to cover
restrictions both within and without the limits provided by the Constitution and it is not
possible to separate the two then the whole law is to be struck down.
DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE. Power of judicial review is not limited to only deciding whether legislative bodies have
SEVERABILITY. worked within the boundaries of certain legislative lists in making the required laws, but
JUDICIAL REVIEW it is necessary whether the laws have been made in accordance with the Articles of the
Constitution and they do not violate the other provisions of the Constitution.

Page-2
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
 9. Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, (1978) 1 SCC 248
मेनका गांधी बनाम संघ
F.R.: GENERAL The SC observed that F.R. represent the basic values cherished by the people of
India and they protect the dignity of an individual and create conditions in
which every human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent.
VARIOUS FACETS OF RIGHT Personal Liberty in Article 21 is of widest amplitude and covers variety of rights.
TO LIFE AND LIBERTY The procedure established by law should be just, fair and reasonable. Law
means having elements of principles of natural justice.

10. K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI, (2017) 10 SCC1

के.एस. पुट्टस्वामी बनाम संघ
Proportionality Proportionality is an essential facet of the guarantee against arbitrary State action because it
ensures that the nature and quality of the encroachment on the right is not dis proportionate to
the purpose of the law.
VARIOUS Right to privacy: SC held that right to privacy is a F.R. and it is protected under Article 21. Court
overruled M.P. Sharma's case and Kharak Singh's case to the extent they held that right to privacy is
FACETS OF
not a F.R..
RIGHT TO LIFE Aadhaar held to be constitutional: SC upheld Union the constitutional validity of Aadhaar after
AND LIBERTY reading down and striking down certain provisions.
Privacy ensures that a human being can lead life of dignity by securing the inner recesses of the
human personality from unwanted intrusions.
All matters pertaining to an individual do not qualify as being inherent part of right to privacy.
Only those matters over which there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy are protected
by Article 21.
Right to privacy as a F.R. is not limited Article 21. It resonates through the entirety of Part III of the
Constitution. Privacy is also recognized as a natural right which inheres in individual and is thus,
inalienable.
Privacy is both negative and positive concept. As a negative concept it restrains the State from
committing an intrusion upon life of personal liberty of citizens. As a positive obligation it imposes
an obligation on the State to take all necessary measures to protect the privacy of an individual.
Good and just social order is one which respects dignity. Dignity is to be treated as empowerment
or right to development.

11. West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75

पश्चिम बंगाल बनाम अनवर अली सरकार
RIGHT TO EQUALITY SC held that the expression 'equal protection of laws' is a corollary to the expression
'equality before law' and it is difficult to imagine a situation in which the violation of the
equal protection of law will not be violation of equality before law.
SC held that differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are
two different things. It is important to have nexus between the basis of classification and the
object of the Act.

12. R.K. Garg v. UOI, AIR 1981 SC 2138

आर.के. गगग बनाम संघ
RIGHT TO EQUALITY SC held that Article 14 forbids class-legislation but it does not prohibit reasonable classification.
LEGISLATURE (1981) 4 SCC 675
The power to promulgate ordinances is a power exercisable only when both Houses of the
Parliament are not in session and it has been conferred ex necessitate rie in order to enable the
executive to meet an emergent situation. This power to promulgate an ordinance is co-extensive
with the power of Parliament to make laws and the President cannot issue an Ordinance which
Parliament cannot enact into a law.

Page-3
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
 13. U.N. Rao v. Indira Gandhi, AIR 1971 SC 1002
यूएन राव बनाम इंददरा गांधी
RIGHT TO EQUALITY SC has held that Article 74(1) is mandatory and the President cannot exercise the
executive power without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Even after the
dissolution of Lok Sabha the Council of Ministers does not cease to hold the office.
EXECUTIVE Article 74(1) is mandatory and therefore, the President cannot exercise executive
power without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. It is essential to have a
Council of Ministers under Article 74(1) even at a time when the House of the People
has been dissolved or term expired.

14. Balaji v. Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649

बालाजी बनाम मैसूर
ARTICLE 15 SC held that 'caste' of a person cannot be the sole test for ascertaining whether a particular
class is backward class or not. Poverty, occupation etc. are other relevant factors to be taken
into consideration. But if entire 'caste' is found to be socially and educationally backward, it
may be included in the list of Backward Classes.
ARTICLE 16 SC held that Article 16(4) provision only confers discretion to make special provisions for
backward classes of citizens.

15. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 355

टी.एम.ए. पाई फाउंडश
े न बनाम कनागटक राज्य
ARTICLE 16 Supreme Court held that State could not make reservations of seats in admissions in privately run
educational institutions and higher educational institutions. make reservations

CULTURAL AND (2002) 8 SCC 481

EDUCATIONAL Supreme Court laid down the following:
RIGHTS (1) State is to be regarded as a unit for determining linguistic as well as religious minority.
(2) Institutes which receive aid from the State could be subject to government rules and regulations.
(3) In respect of unaided institutions only regulation which the government may put is regarding the
qualifications and minimum conditions of eligibility of teachers and principal.
(4) Conditions of recognition and affliliation by or to a Board or University is to be complied with.
(5) An aided institution has to admit a reasonable number of non-minority students.
(6) Minority institution may have its own procedure and method of admission but the procedure must be
fair and transparent.

16. People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473
पीपुल्स यूननयन फॉर डेमोक्रेदटक राइट् स बनाम यूननयन ऑफ इंडडया
ARTICLE 17-18 It is also known as Asiad Project Worker's case, Supreme Court held that right under
Article 17 is available against private individual also.
VARIOUS FACETS OF RIGHT Non-payment of minimum wages: Supreme Court held that non-payment of
TO LIFE AND LIBERTY minimum wages is violation of Article 21.
RIGHT AGAINST Supreme Court held that construction work is a dangerous work and employment
EXPLOITATION of children in construction industry amounts to violation of Article 24.

Page-4
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
 17. Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106
बेनेट कोलमैन एंड कंपनी बनाम भारत संघ

RIGHT TO FREEDOMS The Supreme Court held that the rights of shareholders will regard to Article
19(1)(a) were protected and manifested by the newspapers owned and controlled
by the shareholders through medium of corporation.
Supreme Court held that order fixing the maximum number of pages which a
newspaper can print is violation of freedom of speech and expression. Freedom
of press is both quantitative and qualitative. It lies in both circulation and
content.

18. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India,(2018) 17 SCC 324

मजदूर नकसान शक्ति संगठन बनाम भारत संघ
RIGHT TO FREEDOMS Right to protest is recognized as a fundamental right under the Constitution.
This right is crucial in democracy which rests on the participation of an
informed citizenry in governance.
VARIOUS FACETS OF RIGHT If there is a conflict of two rights qua individuals under Article 21 then in such a
TO LIFE AND LIBERTY situation the test of 'larger public interest' is required.

FEATURES OF CONSTITUTION
19. Excel Wear v. UOI, AIR 1979 SC 25
एक्सेल नवयर बनाम संघ

20. D.S. Nakara v. UOI, AIR 1983 SC 130:

डीएस नाकारा बनाम संघ
Courts would give more weightage to the nationalization and state ownership but the
principles of socialism should not be interpreted and implemented to the extent it totally
ignores the interest of private ownership. Further, SC held that the basic purpose of socialism
is to provide decent standard of life and social security to people.

21. West Bengal v. UOI, AIR 1963 SC 1241

पश्चिम बंगाल बनाम संघ
Indian Constitution is not truly federal and States are not sovereign.
Political sovereignty is distributed between Union and States with greater weightage in favour of the
Union.

22. Rajasthan v. UOI, AIR 1977 SC 1361

राजस्थान बनाम संघ
Indian Union is federal but the extent of federalism is largely watered down by the needs of progress
and development of a country

23. Kuldip Nayar v. UOI, AIR 2006 SC 3127

कुलदीप नैयर बनाम संघ
Though the federal principle is dominant in our Constitution and that principle is one of its
basic features, but, it is also equally true that federalism leans in favour of a strong centre or
unitary power.

Page-5
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
24. Jihubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. Gujarat, AIR 1995 SC 142
जजहुभाई नानभाई खाचर बनाम गुजरात
SC held that right to property under Article 300 A is not the basic feature of the Constitution.
25. K. Lakshminarayanan v. UOI, (2020) 14 SCC 664
के. लक्ष्मीनारायणन बनाम संघ
The constitutional conventions are born and recognized in working of the Constitution.
The purpose and object of constitutional convention is to ensure that the legal framework of
the Constitution is operated in accordance with constitutional values and constitutional
morality.
The conventions are not static but change with the change in the constitutional values and
constitutional interpretations.

PREAMBLE
प्रस्तावना
26. KK Baskaran v. Tamil SC held that the Constitution should be interpreted in such manner so as to
Nadu, secure the goal of social, economic and political justice.
AIR 2011 SC 1485
27. Nandini Sundar v. SC said that promise to provide social, economic and political justice given
Chhattisgarh, in the Preamble cannot be forgotten or neglected.
AIR 2011 SC 2839
28. Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. UOI, One of the objectives of the Preamble of our Constitution is 'fraternity
(2020) 5 SCC 421
assuring the dignity of individual and the unity and integrity of the nation'.
'Fraternity' means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians.
In a country like ours it is necessary to emphasize and reemphasize that the
unity and integrity of India can be preserved only by a spirit of brotherhood.

UNION & TERRITORY

29. Amar Singh Ji v. The SC has ruled that at any given point of time, the territory of India is the
Rajasthan, AIR 1955 SC area which is specified in the First Schedule under Article 1.
504
20. Babulal v. Bombay, If the State Legislature to which the Bill has been referred, does not express its views
within the period so specified or extended, the Bill may be introduced in the Parliament
AIR 1960 SC 51
even though the views of the State have not been obtained by the President. If the State
Legislature expresses its views within the time so specified or extended the Parliament is
not bound to accept or act upon the views of the State Legislature.
31. Maganbhai v. UOI, An agreement to refer the dispute to the tribunal does not amount to cessation
AIR 1969 SC 783 of territory and hence amendment of Constitution is not necessary.
32. R.C. Poudyal v. UOI, Even though the admission or establishment of a new State will be on such
AIR 1993 SC 1804 terms and conditions as the Parliament may think fit, such conditions cannot
be imposed which is against the basic structure of the Constitution.

CITIZENSHIP

33. Pradeep Jain (Dr.) v. UOI, AIR 1984 SC 1420

प्रदीप जैन (डॉ.) बनाम संघ

Page-6
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
34. Dr. Yogesh Bharadwaj vs. Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 356
डॉ. योगेश भारद्वाज बनाम उत्तर प्रदे श
SC has held that Article 5 recognizes domicile of India. It does not recognize the concept of State
domicile.
Sondur Gopal v. Sondur Rajini, AIR 2013 SC 2678
Regarding domicile of choice SC has held that in domicile of choice mere acquisition of other domicile is
not sufficient. There must be clear intention to abandon the domicile of origin.

35. Bhanwaru Khan v. UOI, AIR 2002 SC 1614

भंवरु खान बनाम संघ
SC recognized that those who had voluntarily migrated to Pakistan and became citizens there, cannot
return to India. They cannot claim the citizenship of India on the ground that they had been living in
India for a long time and their names have been included in the voter list.

36. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 1811
SC held that a company is not a citizen and therefore, cannot claim F.R. which have been conferred upon
its citizens.
The court further clarified that the citizenship in Part II is concerned with the natural persons and not
juristic persons.

37. Tata Engineering v. Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 40

It was contended by shareholders of the company that though the company was not the citizen but
shareholders were citizens and therefore, the F.R. of its shareholders must be protected by lifting the
corporate veil.
The SC while rejecting the said contention held that what cannot be achieved directly cannot also be
achieved indirectly.
Thus, company does not receive the protection of F.R. through shareholders.

38. R. C. Cooper v. UOI, (Bank Nationalization case) AIR 1970 SC 564

SC held that if the State's action impairs the rights of shareholders and as well as that of company the
share-holders will be entitled to protection under Article 19. From this case the SC adopted a flexible
approach in interpreting this aspect.

39. Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 32

The SC held that though a company is not a citizen but a shareholder has a right to carry on business
through agency of a company.

Page-7
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
 DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE. SEVERABILITY. JUDICIAL REVIEW
40. Keshav Madhav Menon v. Bombay, AIR 1951 SC 128
SC observed that pre-Constitutional laws exists for all past acts, i.e. prior to commencement of
Constitution.

41. Bhikhaji v. Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 781

Formulated the doctrine of eclipse. The court held that under this doctrine the law is overshadowed by
F.R. and remains dormant.

42. Saghir Ahmed v. Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 728

The SC held that the doctrine of eclipse is only applicable to pre-Constitutional laws and not to post
Constitutional laws. In Deep Chand v. U.P. (1959) and Mahendra Lal Jain v. U.P. (1963) this view was
endorsed by the court.

43. Gujarat v. Ambica Mills, AIR 1974 SC 1300

SC modified its view expressed in Deep Chand's case, Mahendra Lal Jain's case and Sagir Ahmed's case. The
court held that post-constitutional laws, which are inconsistent with F.R., are not void ab initio for all
purposes. Doctrine of eclipse is applicable to post constitutional laws as well.

44. R.M.D.C. v. UOI, AIR 1957 SC 628

The SC elaborately discussed the doctrine of severability and held that when after removing the invalid
portion what remains is a complete code then there is no necessity to declare the whole Act void.

45. Kihota Hollohan v. Zachillhu, AIR 1993 SC 412

SC held that 10th Schedule minus para 7 remains valid and constitutional. The remaining provisions of
10th Schedule are complete in themselves and workable.

46. Pravin Kumar v. UOI, (2020) 9 SCC 471

प्रवीण कुमार बनाम संघ
The constitutional courts while exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the role of
appellate authority.
Their jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to
manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not analogous to
venturing into the merits of the case like an appellate authority.

CONCEPT OF STATE
47. University of Madras v. Santa Bai, AIR 1954 Mad. 67
मद्रास नवश्वनवद्यालय बनाम सांता बाई
Madras High Court held that 'other authorities' could only be interpreted by using the principle of
ejusdem generis.
Therefore, it could only mean authorities exercising governmental or sovereign functions.

48. Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857

SC rejected the interpretation in Santa Bai's case and held that the expression 'other authorities' is
wide enough to include all authorities created by the Constitution or statute on whom the power is
conferred by law. It is not necessary that the authority must be engaged in performing governmental or
sovereign function.

Page-8
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
49. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331
सुखदे व ससिंह बनाम भगतराम
SC held that if the functions of the Corporations are of public importance and closely related to
government functions then it should be treated as agency or instrumentality of government i.e. "State'
within the meaning of Part III.

50. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628
रमण दयाराम शेट्टी बनाम भारतीय अंतरागष्ट्रीय हवाई अड्डा प्राडधकरण
SC followed the broader test laid down in Sukhdev Singh's case. The court laid down following test to
determine whether a body is an agency or instrumentality of the State -
(1) Financial resources of the State is the chief funding source of the body.
(2) Existence of deep and pervasive State control.
(3) Functional character of the body is governmental in essence.
(4) Department of government is transferred to the corporation.
(5) Whether the Corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected.

51. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487

अजय हक्तसया बनाम खाक्तलद मुजीबो
SC held that a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1898, is an agency or
instrumentality of the State and hence a "State' within the meaning of Article 12. The court observed
that the test is not how a juristic person is created but why it has been brought into existence.

52. Naresh v. Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC1

नरेश बनाम महाराष्ट्र
The question whether the judiciary comes under the word 'State' or not was considered by SC.
SC did not express any definitive opinion on the matter. It said that even if the court is considered
within the meaning of 'State' a writ under Article 32 cannot be issued to a High Court against its judicial
orders. The SC opined that such judicial orders cannot be said to violate the F.R..

53. Riju Prasad Sharma v. Assam, (2015) 9 SCC 461

ररजू प्रसाद शमाग बनाम असम,
SC categorically held that courts while acting on judicial side, are not 'State' under Article 12 of the
Constitution. When the courts act in purely administrative capacity then they may attract the writ
jurisdiction against their administrative actions. Thus, after this decision, the position is amply clear
that courts while acting on judicial side are not 'State' but they may attract the trappings of State'
when they act in administrative capacity.

F.R.: GENERAL
54. M. Nagaraj v. UOI, AIR 2007 SC 71
The SC has held that the Constitution has confirmed the existence of F.R. and given them protection.
Individuals possess certain basic human rights independently of any Constitution by reason of the fact
that they are humans.

55. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694

SC held that F.R. represent basic values enriched by the people of India. It is to preserve and protect
certain basic human rights against the interference of the State. The object is to ensure inviolability of
certain essential rights against political vicissitudes.

56. Behram v. Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 123 / बेहराम बनाम बॉम्बे

Page-9
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
57. Bashesher Nath v. Income Tax Commissioner, AIR 1959 SC 149
बशेर नाथ बनाम आयकर आयुि
SC clarified that person cannot waive his F.R.. This option is not available to him. These rights have not
only been enshrined in the Constitution for personal interest but also for benefits of entire society.

RIGHT TO EQUALITY
58. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan, AIR 1975 SC 2299
इंददरा नेहरू गांधी बनाम राज नारायण
SC held that Rule of Law embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution is the basic feature of the
Constitution and it cannot be destroyed by the amendment of the Constitution.

59. Chirinjit Lal v. UOI, AIR 1951 SC 41

डचरंजीत लाल बनाम संघ
SC held that law may be constitutional even though it applies to a single individual on account of special
circumstances. That single individual may be treated as a class. The presumption of constitutionality is
always in favour of the statute and the person who challenges the constitutionality has to show that
law is arbitrary and unreasonable.

60. Ds. Nakara v. UOI, AIR 1983 SC 130

डी.एस. नाकारा बनाम संघ
SC held that doctrine of classification was evolved to sustain a legislation to State in order to help
weaker sections of society.

61. EP. Royappa v. Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555

ईपी. रोयप्पा बनाम तडमलनाडु
Article 14 spells the traditional concept of equality which is based on reasonable classification. SC laid
down a new concept of equality which is different from traditional concept of reasonable classification.
Article 14 strikes at the arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.
Principle of reasonableness pervades Article 14.

62. National Legal Services Authority v. UOI, AIR 2014 SC 1863

राष्ट्रीय कानूनी सेवा प्राडधकरण बनाम संघ
It was held that the Members of Transgender community (neither males nor females) should be treated
as Third Gender. They are entitled to equal rights like any other citizen of India. Discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation or gender identity includes any discrimination, exclusion, restriction or
preference, which has the effect of nullifying or transposing equality by the law or the equal protection
of laws guaranteed under our Constitution.

Article 15
63. Kathi Raning Rawat v. Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123
काठी राणणिंग रावत बनाम सौराष्ट्र
SC held that when a law comes within the prohibition of Article 15 it cannot be validated by recourse to
Article 14 by applying the principle of reasonable classification.

64. Madras v. Champakam Dorarairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226

मद्रास बनाम चंपकम दोरैराजन
SC declared void the G.O. by Madras government which reserved seats in State Medical and Engineering
Colleges for different communities on the basis of religion, race and caste. SC nullified it because it
classified students on the basis of caste and religion.

Page-10
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
65. Ashok Kumar Thakur v. UOI, (2008) 6 SCC1
अशोक कुमार ठाकुर बनाम संघ
93rd Constitutional Amendment was challenged. The SC upheld its constitutionality. The court however,
held that the benefits of reservations cannot be given to creamy layer candidates.

66. Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. UOI, AIR 2014 SC 2114
प्रमनत एजुकेशनल एंड कल्चरल ट्रस्ट बनाम संघ
SC held that classification of unaided private educational institutions and aided private educational
institutions is not violative of Article 14.

Article 16
67. P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2005 SC 3226
पीए इनामदार बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य
Supreme Court held that State could not make reservations of seats in admissions in privately run
educational institutions and higher educational institutions.

68. State of Bihar v. Chandreshwar Pathak, AIR 2014 SC 3752

नबहार राज्य बनाम चंद्रेश्वर पाठक
Supreme Court held that in the case of state services the equality of opportunity means equality before
members of same class of employees and not equality between member of separate and independent
classes.

69. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477

Scope and extent of Article 16(4) was examined thoroughly by Supreme Court. Majority opinion of the court is
summarized as follows:
1. Backward class of citizen in Article 16(4) can be identified on the basis of caste and not only on economic basis
but caste alone cannot be the basis for consideration.
2. The court struck down economic criterion for reservation on the ground that Article 16(4) does not mention it.
3. Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1). It is an instance of classification. Reservation can be made under
Article 16(1). Court overruled its decision in Balaji v. State of Mysore in which it was held that Article 16(4) is an
exception to Article 16(1).
4. Backward classes in Article 16(4) is not similar to socially and educationally backward in Article 15(4). It is much
more than socially and educationally backward classes. Certain classes may not qualify for Article 15(4) but they
may qualify for Article 16(4). Court overruled Balaji's decision on this point in which it was held that backward
classes of citizens under Article 16(4) is same as socially and educationally backward classes.
5. Creamy layer must be excluded from backward classes.
6. Article 16(4) permits classification of backward classes into backward and more backward classes.
7. Reservation shall not exceed 50 percent. In extra-ordinary situations it may be relaxed in favour of people living
in far flung and remote areas of the country.
8. Court overruled Devadasan v. Union of India (1964) and held that 'carry forward' rule is valid provided it should
not result in breach of 50% rule.
9. Court held that reservation under Article 16(4) cannot be made in promotions.

70. Union of India v. Virpal Singh, AIR 1996 SC 448

भारत संघ बनाम वीरपाल ससिंह
Supreme Court held that caste criterion for promotion is violative of Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
Seniority between reserved category candidates and general candidates would continue to be governed
by their panel position prepared at the time of selection. Accelerate promotion does not give
accelerated or consequential seniority. The court held that Article 16(4) and 16(4-A) does not mandate
seniority over general category as a matter of right.

Page-11
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
71. M. Nagraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71
एम. नागराज बनाम भारत संघ
Clause (4-A) and Clause (4-B of Article 16) were challenged in The Supreme Court held that Article 16(4A)
and Article 16(4B) flow from Article 16 and do not alter the basic structure of Article 16(4).

72. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar, (2012) 7 SCC1

यूपी पावर कॉपोरेशन क्तलडमटे ड बनाम राजेश कुमार
State can make reservation laws under Articles 16(4), 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) only on the basis of clear and
certain factual foundation. Efficiency, backwardness and inadequacy of representation are required to
be identified and measured. State can make reservation for SC/STs in promotion only after collecting
quantifiable data showing backwardness and inadequate representation.

73. B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 129

बी.के. पनवत्रा बनाम भारत संघ
Concept of creamy layer has no application to grant of consequential seniority.

74. Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3609 of 2002
Supreme Court held that 100 per cent reservation of teachers belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category
at schools situated in 'Scheduled Ares' is constitutionally invalid. The 100% reservation would amount to
unreasonable and unfair. The Governor in the exercise of the power conferred by para 5(1) of the Fifth
Schedule of the Constitution, cannot provide a 100% reservation.

75. Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 3 SCC1

मुकेश कुमार बनाम उत्तराखंड राज्य
Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) do not confer fundamental right to claim reservations in promotion. They are
in the nature of enabling provisions vesting a discretion on the State Government to consider providing
reservations if circumstances so warrant. State Governments cannot be directed to provide reservations
for appointment in public posts.

76. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, (2020) 8 SCC1

पंजाब राज्य बनाम दवविंदर ससिंह
The ceiling limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and the compelling reasons namely, backwardness,
inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements
without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse.

77. Telangana Judges Association v. Union of India, (2019) 18 SCC 769

तेलंगाना जजेज एसोक्तसएशन बनाम भारत संघ
Nativity for public employment runs counter to the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(2)
except when it is provided by parliamentary law. In absence of any parliamentary law providing
residence as eligibility for public employment no condition can be put regarding require of residence for
public employment

78. Pravakar Mallick v. State of Orissa, (2020) 15 SCC 297

प्रवाकर मल्ल्लक बनाम उडीसा राज्य
Collection of quantifiable data on the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in promotional posts
in the State, which can be tested by the courts, while balancing the same with requirements of overall
administrative efficiency is mandatory pre-condition for grant of reservation in promotion with
consequential seniority under Article 16 (4-A).

Page-12
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
79. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020) 8 SCC1
पंजाब राज्य बनाम दवविंदर ससिंह
Reservation was not contemplated for all the time by the framers of the Constitution. On the one hand,
there is no exclusion of those who have come up, on the other hand, if sub-classification is denied, it
would defeat right to equality by treating unequal as equal. Scheduled Castes form homogenous classes
and there cannot be any sub-division.
Article 17-18
80. Balaji Raghavan v. Union of Supreme Court held that “National Awards' would not
India, AIR 1996 SC 770 amount to 'title' within Article 18.
The court also held that the National Awards shall not be
used as suffixes or prefixes.

RIGHT TO FREEDOMS
81. Indibly Creative (P) Ltd. v. State of W.B., (2020) 12 SCC 436
इंडडबली नक्रएदटव (पी) क्तलडमटे ड बनाम पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य
Freedoms as recognized by the Constitution are not entrusted by State but are inseparable from
existence as human beings. People have entrusted power to State under the Constitution which it holds
it in trust and as such it is accountable to people in exercise of power.

82. Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj v. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, AIR 2016 SC 867
अलगापुरम आर. मोहनराज बनाम तडमलनाडु नवधान सभा
Rights guaranteed under Article 19 are available to citizens only.

83. D.C & G.M. v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 937

डीसी और जीएम v. भारत संघ
The Supreme Court held that writ petition filed by the company for violation of Fundamental Rights
under Article 19 is maintainable.

84. Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124

रमेश थापर बनाम मद्रास राज्य
Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and of press lay at the foundation of all democratic
organizations. Without free political discussion no public education for the proper functioning of the
process of government is possible.

85. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641

इंडडयन एक्सप्रेस समाचार पत्र बनाम भारत संघ
Supreme Court held that 'freedom of press' means freedom from interference from authority which
would have effect of interference with the content and circulation of newspapers.

86. Express Newspapers v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578

एक्सप्रेस समाचार पत्र बनाम भारत संघ
Supreme Court held that the press is not immune from the laws of taxation and industrial application.

87. Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305

सकल पेपसग क्तलडमटे ड बनाम भारत संघ
The order imposing minimum price and number of pages was held to be violative of Article 19(1)(a).

Page-13
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
88. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632
आर राजगोपाल बनाम तडमलनाडु राज्य
Supreme Court held that the government has no authority in law to impose a prior-restraint upon
publication of defamatory material against its officials.

89. Devidas Ramchandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 6 SCC 1

दे वीदास रामचंद्र तुलजापुरकर बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य
Use of obscene language against historically respected personalities cannot be allowed in the name of
artistic freedom, critical thinking or creativity under Article 19(1)(a).

90. Damayanti v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 966

दमयंती बनाम भारत संघ
Supreme Court held that the right to form association necessarily implies that the person forming the
association have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily
admit in the association. Any law by which members are introduced in the voluntary association
without any option being given to the members to keep them out, or any law which takes away the
membership of those who have voluntarily joined it, will be a law violating the right to form the
association.

91. Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1989 SC 1988
सोदन ससिंह बनाम नई ददल्ली नगर सडमनत
Supreme Court held that hawkers have fundamental right to carry on trade on pavement of roads.
However, their right is subject to reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19(6).

92. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 1 SCC 574

खोडे डडस्स्टलरीज क्तलडमटे ड बनाम कनागटक राज्य
Supreme Court held that a citizen has no right to carry on trade or business in liquors as beverage. The
State has a power to prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession and distribution except in cases for
medicinal purposes.

93. B.R. Enterprise v. State of U.P., AIR 1999 SC 1867

बी.आर. उद्यम बनाम उत्तर प्रदे श राज्य
Supreme Court held that lottery cannot be construed as trade or business within the meaning of Article
19(1)(g). It contains element of chance and therefore, it is a gambling

Page-14
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
94. Om Prakash v. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 1896
ओम प्रकाश बनाम उत्तर प्रदे श राज्य
Supreme Court held that ban on sale of eggs within the municipal limits of Rikshikesh is valid as it
contains reasonable restriction. The reasonability must be construed from point of view of cultural and
religious background of the town.

95. Godawat Pan Masala Products Private Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4057
गोदावत पान मसाला प्रोडक्ट् स प्राइवेट क्तलडमटे ड बनाम भारत संघ
Supreme Court held that ban on pan masala and guthka containing tobacco to under age persons is not
violative of Article 19(1)(g).

96. Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd and others v. Govt of West Bengal and others (2019) SCC OnLine SC 564
इंडेनबक्तलटी नक्रएदटव प्राइवेट क्तलडमटे ड और अन्य बनाम पश्चिम बंगाल सरकार और अन्य
Supreme Court held that free speech cannot be gagged by fear of mob violence. The Court ordered Rs 20
lakhs compensation to the makers of the Bengali film "Bhobhishyoter Bhoot", which had suffered an
'unofficial' ban from the West Bengal government.

97. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Qureshi Kasab Jamat, AIR 2006 SC 212
गुजरात राज्य बनाम डमजागपुर मोती कुरैशी कसाब जमात,
Supreme Court held that ban on slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattles is not
violative of Article 19(1)(g). It is a reasonable restriction as cows and her progeny are backbone of
Indian agriculture and economy.

98. Amit Sahini (Shaheen Bagh, In re) v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 439
अडमत सानहनी (शाहीन बाग, पुन:) बनाम राज्य
Holding meeting by blocking public place or road in protest against particular legislation for indefinite
period without permission from authorities causing inconvenience to commuters is not democratic way
of expressing protest. Administration must take necessary action to clear encroachment or obstruction
created by such protesters.

Article 20
99. T. Baral v. Henry An Hoe, (1983) 1 SCC 177
टी. बराल बनाम हेनरी एन हो
Accused can take advantage of a beneficial provision under ex post facto laws.

100. Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Ch. Gandhi, AIR 2013 SC 2113

आंध्र प्रदे श सरकार बनाम चौ. गांधी
If ex post facto law is ameliorative it may be retrospective.

101. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300

एमपी शमाग बनाम सतीश चंद्र
Supreme Court held that Article 20(3) has following three essentials:
(1) Person must be accused of an offence;
(2) This provision is a protection against compulsion to be a witness;
(3) Protection is against compulsion to give evidence against himself.
A person whose name is mentioned in the FIR as an accused could claim the protection under
Article 20.

Page-15
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
102. R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821
आर.के. डालडमया बनाम ददल्ली प्रशासन
A person is said to be accused if the formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has
been leveled which may result in prosecution and conviction.

103. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu, AIR 1961 SC 1808

बॉम्बे राज्य बनाम काठी कालू
Supreme Court held that interpretation of the phrase 'to be witness' given in M.P. Sharma's case is
too broad. 'To be witness' is not equivalent to furnishing evidence. Self-incrimination can only mean
conveying information based on personal knowledge of the person giving information and it cannot
include the mechanical process of producing documents or giving finger impressions or blood samples
etc.

104. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, AIR 1977 SC 1025

नंददनी सत्पथी बनाम पी.एल. दाननश
Supreme Court held that protection of Article 20(3) is available from the stage of police interrogation.

105. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974

सेल्वी बनाम कनागटक राज्य
Lie detector tests should be administered only with the consent of the accused. In case the consent of
the accused is not obtained then such tests are violative of Article 20(3).

VARIOUS FACETS OF RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY

106. A.K Gopalan v. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 27
ए के गोपालन बनाम भारत संघ
Personal liberty in Article 21 means liberty of physical body and nothing else. Procedure established by
law does not means due process of law. Law means state made law and it does not mean having
element of natural justice.

107. Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746

फ्ांक्तसस कोराली बनाम केंद्र शाक्तसत प्रदे श ददल्ली
Supreme Court held that right to live is not limited to mere animal existence. It is something more
than just physical survival.

108. Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR) v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 3 SCC 429
इंडडयन होटल एंड रेस्टोरेंट एसोक्तसएशन (एएचएआर) बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य
Supreme Court held that there cannot be a total prohibition of dance bars in Maharashtra. The Bench
also relaxed the stringent conditions imposed by the Government for getting license for dance bars.
The complete prohibition on serving alcohol in the dance bars was quashed as disproportionate.

109. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39

जोसेफ शाइन बनाम भारत संघ
Offence of Adultery is unconstitutional: Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of Indian Penal Code
as unconstitutional. Court held that it violated women's right to dignity and hence it infringed Art. 21.

110. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 345

नवतेज ससिंह जौहर बनाम भारत संघ
Homo-sexual acts are constitutional: Supreme Court declared Section 377 of Indian Penal Code,
unconstitutional insofar as it criminalizes homosexual acts between consenting adults.
Page-16
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
111. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180
ओल्गा टे क्तलस बनाम बॉम्बे नगर ननगम
Right to livelihood: Supreme Court held that right to life include right to livelihood also.

112. Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549

चमेली ससिंह बनाम उत्तर प्रदे श राज्य
Right to shelter: Supreme Court held that right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21.

113. Suchitra Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, AIR 2010 SC 235

सुडचत्रा श्रीवास्तव बनाम चंडीगढ़ प्रशासन
Reproductive choices: Supreme Court held that right to make reproductive choices (decision to
produce child or not) is included in Article 21.
114. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039
परमानंद कटारा बनाम भारत संघ
Right to health: Supreme Court held that all doctors (private or government) are obliged to extend
medical assistance to injured immediately without asking for legal formalities.

115. Ramlila Maidan v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012)5 SCC1

रामलीला मैदान बनाम गृह सडचव, भारत संघ,
Right to sleep: Supreme Court held that right to sleep is a fundamental right as it is biological and
essential element of basic necessities of life.

116. Jolly George Varghese v. State Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470
जॉली जॉजग वगीज बनाम स्टे ट बैंक ऑफ कोचीन,
Arrest of judgment debtor: Supreme Court held that arrest and detention of honest judgment debtor,
in absence of willful failure to pay despite sufficient means is violative of Article 21.

117. Neerja Chaudhary v. State of M.P., AIR 1984 SC 1099

नीरजा चौधरी बनाम म.प्र. राज्य,
Bonded labour: Supreme Court held that bonded labour should be identified and rehabilitated.

118. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648

जजयान कौर बनाम पंजाब राज्य
Right to die: Supreme Court held that 'right to life' does not include 'right to die'.

119. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaugh v. Union of India, AIR 2011 SC 1290

अरुणा रामचंद्र शानबाग बनाम भारत संघ
Passive euthanasia: Supreme Court held that in certain cases passive euthanasia is allowed.

120. National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1863
राष्ट्रीय नवडधक सेवा प्राडधकरण बनाम भारत संघ,
Self-determination of gender: Supreme Court held that self-determination of gender is part of
personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.

121. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2011 SC 3361

बचपन बचाओ आंदोलन बनाम भारत संघ
Child rights: Supreme Court held that sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children detained in
circus is violation of Article 21.

Page-17
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
122. M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548
एम.एच. होसकोट बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य,
Right to free legal aid: Supreme Court held that right to free legal aid is part and parcel of right to life
and liberty.

123. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360

हुसैनारा खातून बनाम नबहार राज्य
Right to speedy trial: Supreme Court held that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right and it is
implicit in Article 21.

124. Nirmal Singh Khalon v. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 984

ननमगल ससिंह खालों बनाम पंजाब राज्य
Fair investigation: Supreme Court held that fair trial includes fair investigation.

125. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579

सुनील बत्रा बनाम ददल्ली प्रशासन
Keeping undertrials with convicts: Supreme Court held that keeping undertrials with convicts in jail
offends Article 21.

126. Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535

प्रेम शंकर बनाम ददल्ली प्रशासन
Right against handcuffing: Supreme Court held that hand-cuffing is prima facie inhuman, arbitrary
and unreasonable. Handcuffing should be resorted to when there is clear and present danger of
escape.

127. Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 625

नकशोर ससिंह बनाम राजस्थान राज्य
Use of third degree methods: Supreme Court held that use of 'third degree' method by police is
violative of Article 21.

128. Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 40

मुरली एस. दे वडा बनाम भारत संघ
Ban on smoking in public places: Supreme Court directed the government to issue orders banning
smoking in public places considering the adverse effect of smoking on non-smokers.

129. Attorney-General of India v. Lachma Devi, AIR 1986 SC 467

भारत के महान्यायवादी बनाम लछमा दे वी,
Public hanging: Supreme Court held that execution of death sentence by public hanging is violative of
Article 21.

130. Deena v. Union of India, (1983) 4 SCC 645

दीना बनाम भारत संघ
Hanging by rope: Supreme Court held that hanging by rope does not violate Article 21.

131. T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1981 SC 643

टी.वी. वथीस्वरन बनाम तडमलनाडु राज्य
Delay in execution of death sentence: Supreme Court held that delay in execution of death sentence is
violative of Article 21.

Page-18
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
132. Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746
नीलाबती बेहरा बनाम उडीसा राज्य
Custodial torture/death: Supreme Court awarded compensation to the family of deceased who died in
police custody due to beating.

133. D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., AIR 1997 SC 610

डी.के. बसु बनाम पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य
Supreme Court laid down guidelines to be followed by investigating agencies in cases of arrest and
detention.
134. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260
जोवगिंदर कुमार बनाम यूपी राज्य,
Supreme Court laid down guidelines regarding arrest of persons during investigation.

135. Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar,(1983) 4 SCC 141

रुदल शाह बनाम नबहार राज्य
Compensation for violation of Article 21:
Supreme Court held that courts have power to award compensation appropriate cases of violation of
Article 21.

136. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011

नवशाखा बनाम राजस्थान राज्य
Prevention of sexual harassment: Supreme Court la guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of
working in workplace.

137. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., (1985)2 SCC 431
138. MC Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram Food Fertilizer case), (1986) 2 SCC 176
139. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212

140. Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 650
Right to clean environment: Supreme Court held that right to clean environment is a fundamental
right protected under Article 21. Consequently, Supreme Court also gave various directions regarding
upkeep of environment and control of pollution.

141. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666

मोनहनी जैन बनाम कनागटक राज्य
Supreme Court held that right to education at all levels is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21.

142. Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645

उन्नी कृष्णन बनाम आंध्र प्रदे श राज्य,
Supreme Court held that right to education is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 but right to
free education is available to the children until they complete the age of 14 years. After that the
obligation of State to provide education is subject to economic capacity and development.

143. State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sundar, (2011) 8 SCC 737

तडमलनाडु राज्य बनाम के. श्याम सुंदरी
Supreme Court held that the right to education should be extended to have quality education without
discrimination on the ground of economic, social and cultural backgrounds.

Page-19
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
144. A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710
ए.के. रॉय बनाम भारत संघ
Supreme Court laid down following guidelines relating to arrest under preventive detention law:
(1) After detention the family members of detenue should be informed about detention and place of
detention;
(2) Detenu must be detained in a place where he habitually resides unless in certain exceptional
circumstances detention at other place is feasible.
(3) Detenue must be entitled to books, writing materials, own food and visits from family and friends;
(4) He must be kept separate from those who are convicted;
(5) Treatment of punitive character should not be meted out to him.

145. MC Mehta. Union of India, (2019) 17 SCC 490

एमसी मेहता भारत संघ
➔ It is an established principle of law that the right to life, as envisaged under Article 21 of the
Constitution includes the right to a decent environment.
➔ The right to live in an environment free from smoke and pollution follows from the quality of life
which is an inherent part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
➔ The right to live with human dignity becomes illusory in absence of a healthy environment.

Page-20
Linking Laws Tansukh Sir www.LinkingLaws.com Get Subscription Now
Click Here To Buy Linking Publication