1	His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala [1973] Supp SCR 1
2	Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621
3	Minerva Mills Ltd and Ors v Union of India and Ors [1981] 1 SCR 206
4	Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88
5	A R Antulay v R S Nayak and Anr [1988] Supp 1 SCR 1
6	Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu and Others [1992] 1 SCR 686
7	Indra Sawhney and Ors v Union of India and Ors [1992] Supp 2 SCR 454
8	S R Bommai and Ors v Union of India and Ors [1994] 2 SCR 644
9	L Chandra Kumar v Union of India and Ors [1994] Supp 6 SCR 261
10	Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India and Ors [1996] Supp 5 SCR 241
11	D K Basu v State of West Bengal [1996] Supp 10 SCR 284
12	Mafatlal Industries Ltd v Union of India [1996] Supp 10 SCR 585
13	Vishaka and Ors v State of Rajasthan and Ors [1997] Supp 3 SCR 404
14	Githa Hariharan and Anr v Reserve Bank of India and Anr [1999] 1 SCR 669
15	Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra and Anr [2002] 2 SCR 1006
16	Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Ors v Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors [2002] 3 SCR 100
17	P Rama Chandra Rao v State of Karnataka [2002] 3 SCR 60
18	TMA Pai Foundation and Ors v State of Karnataka and Ors [2002] Supp 3 SCR 587
19	P A Inamdar v State of Karnataka (2004) 8 SCC 139
20	Technip SA v SMS Holding Pvt Ltd and Ors [2005] Supp 1 SCR 223
21	SBP and Co v Patel Engineering Ltd and Anr [2005] Supp 4 SCR 688
22	Rameshwar Prasad and Ors v Union of India and Anr [2006] 1 SCR 562
23	IR Coelho Dead by LRs v State of Tamil Nadu [2007] 1 SCR 706
24	Common Cause v Union of India and Ors [2008] 6 SCR 262
25	State of West Bengal and Ors v The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [2010] 2 SCR 979
26	Selvi and Ors v State of Karnataka [2010] 5 SCR 381
27	Re Special Reference No 1 of 2012 [2012] 9 SCR 311
28	Republic of Italy and Ors v Union of India and Ors [2013] 4 SCR 595
29	Novartis AG v Union of India and Ors [2013] 13 SCR 148
30	Dr Balram Prasad v Dr Kunal Saha and Ors [2013] 12 SCR 30
31	Lalita Kumari v Govt of UP and Ors [2013] 14 SCR 713
32	National Legal Services Authority v Union of India and Ors [2014] 5 SCR 119
33	Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and Ors v Union of India and Ors [2014] 11 SCR 712
34	Kailash Nath Associates v Delhi Development Authority and Anr [2015] 1 SCR 627
35	Shreya Singhal v Union of India [2015] 5 SCR 963
36	Supreme Court AOR Association and Anr v Union of India [2015] 13 SCR 1
37	Union of India v V Sriharan [2015] 14 SCR 613
38	Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v EMCO Limited and Ors [2016] 1 SCR 857
39	Mukesh and Anr v State for NCT of Delhi and Ors [2017] 6 SCR 1
40	Excel Crop Care Limited v Competition Commission of India and Another [2017] 5 SCR 901
41	Common Cause v. Union of India and Ors. [2017] 13 SCR 361
42	Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Others [2017] 9 SCR 797
43	Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [2017] 10 SCR 569
44	Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India & Another [2018] 6 SCR 1
45	Municipal Corporation, Ujjain & Anr. v. BVG India Limited and Ors. [2018] 6 SCR 861
46	Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Others [2018] 3 SCR 770
47	Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice [2018] 7 SCR 379
48	Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2018] 8 SCR 1
49	Jarnail Singh & Others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others [2018] 10 SCR 663
50	Joseph Shine v. Union of India [2018] 11 SCR 765
51	Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel Limited and Others [2018] 14 SCR 489
52	Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2019] 3 SCR 535
53	Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) [2019] 7 SCR 522
54	Ashwani Kumar v Union of India and Anr [2019] 12 SCR 30
55	Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors [2019] 16 SCR 1
56	CPIO v Subhash Chandra Agarwal [2019] 16 SCR 424
57	Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel v Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors [2019] 16 SCR 275
58	Shanti Conductors Pvt Ltd v Assam State Electricity Board and Ors [2019] 16 SCR 252
59	Keisham Meghachandra Singh v The Honble Speaker and Ors [2020] 2 SCR 132
60	Sushila Aggarwal and Ors v State NCT of Delhi and Anr [2020] 2 SCR 1
61	Dheeraj Mor v High Court of Delhi [2020] 2 SCR 161
62	Internet and Mobile Association of India v RBI [2020] 2 SCR 297
63	Indore Development Authority v Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1
64	Madras Bar Association v Union of India and Anr [2020] 2 SCR 246

1             His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala [1973] Supp SCR 1

                “In the landmark case of His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, decided by the Supreme Court of India on April 24, 1973, the court laid down crucial principles that shaped the interpretation and scope of the Indian Constitution.

The case centered around a challenge to the Constitution (Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1971, which sought to curtail the power of the judiciary and amend the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution. The court, in a historic judgment, upheld the basic structure doctrine, ruling that the amending power of Parliament was not unlimited and that it could not alter the essential features or basic structure of the Constitution.

The court held that certain fundamental rights, such as the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, and judicial review, formed an integral part of the basic structure and were beyond the reach of the amending power. This judgment effectively limited the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution, ensuring the preservation of its fundamental principles and values.

The decision in Kesavananda Bharati case had far-reaching implications and established the principle of constitutional supremacy in India. It provided a foundation for subsequent judgments that protected individual rights and upheld the constitutional balance of power. It also safeguarded the independence of the judiciary, ensuring its role as the guardian of the Constitution. The case is widely regarded as a watershed moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence and remains a cornerstone of legal interpretation in the country to this day.”

2             Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621

                “In the case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621, the Supreme Court of India rendered a landmark judgment that significantly expanded the scope of the right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Maneka Gandhi, a journalist and political activist, had her passport impounded by the government without providing her with an opportunity to be heard. Challenging the arbitrary action, she argued that her right to travel abroad fell within the ambit of personal liberty and that the government’s actions violated her fundamental rights.

The court, in its judgment, recognized that personal liberty under Article 21 was not limited to mere physical freedom but encompassed a wider array of rights that were essential for the full development of an individual’s personality. The court observed that the right to travel abroad was an integral part of personal liberty and held that any restriction on this right must meet the test of reasonableness and due process of law.

Moreover, the court declared that the procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his or her personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable. It held that the principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard, were implicit in Article 21 and could not be denied except by a procedure established by law.

The judgment in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India marked a crucial shift in the interpretation of Article 21, expanding its ambit and ensuring that the right to personal liberty included not only physical freedom but also protection against arbitrary state action. It established the principle that the right to life and personal liberty were not mere paper guarantees but substantive rights that were integral to the fundamental rights framework of the Indian Constitution.”

3             Minerva Mills Ltd and Ors v Union of India and Ors [1981] 1 SCR 206

                “In the case of Minerva Mills Ltd and Ors v Union of India and Ors [1981] 1 SCR 206, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment that addressed the delicate balance between legislative powers and fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.

The case arose from a constitutional challenge to the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, which sought to dilute judicial review powers and curtail fundamental rights. The court, in its landmark decision, struck down certain provisions of the amendment and reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case.

The court held that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution was not unlimited and that it could not destroy or damage its basic structure, which included features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, separation of powers, and the rule of law. It emphasized that the Constitution was a social document meant to promote social justice and that the fundamental rights guaranteed under it were inviolable.

Additionally, the court declared that judicial review was an essential feature of the Constitution and a basic feature of the basic structure. It asserted that the judiciary had the authority to determine the constitutional validity of legislation and strike down any law that violated fundamental rights or the basic structure.

The Minerva Mills case reaffirmed the importance of the basic structure doctrine and firmly established the authority of the judiciary to review and invalidate legislative actions that encroached upon fundamental rights and the core principles of the Indian Constitution. The judgment acted as a check on potential legislative excesses and fortified the constitutional framework, ensuring the preservation of individual rights and democratic values in India.”

4             Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88

                “In the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88, the Supreme Court of India addressed the constitutionality of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and its application to combat the menace of dowry-related offenses.

Section 498A was introduced to provide legal protection to married women against cruelty and harassment for dowry demands. However, the petitioner argued that the section was arbitrary, vague, and violative of the right to equality and personal liberty.

The court, in its judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 498A and recognized the importance of addressing the social evil of dowry and its detrimental impact on women. It emphasized that the provision was enacted with the objective of protecting married women from cruelty and harassment in the context of dowry demands, a problem prevalent in Indian society.

The court held that the provision was neither vague nor arbitrary, as it sufficiently defined the offense and provided guidelines for its application. It recognized that the legislation was intended to be a deterrent against dowry-related offenses and emphasized that the section should be interpreted and applied judiciously to prevent misuse.

The judgment in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v State of Maharashtra reinforced the commitment of the judiciary to protect the rights and well-being of married women. It upheld the constitutionality of Section 498A and recognized the need for stringent measures to combat the social evil of dowry and protect the rights and dignity of women in India.”

5             A R Antulay v R S Nayak and Anr [1988] Supp 1 SCR 1

                “In the case of A R Antulay v R S Nayak and Anr [1988] Supp 1 SCR 1, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of judicial bias and the principles of natural justice in relation to the disqualification of a judge.

The case revolved around the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) scam, where allegations of corruption were made against A R Antulay, who was then the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. Antulay challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear a petition seeking his disqualification as a member of the legislative assembly due to bias on the part of the judges involved.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, reaffirmed the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. It held that the petitioner was entitled to a fair and impartial tribunal and that the mere appearance of bias could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

The court emphasized that judges must not only be impartial but must also avoid any reasonable apprehension of bias. It observed that the judge in question had exhibited apparent bias through his conduct and statements, which created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The judgment in A R Antulay v R S Nayak and Anr reinforced the importance of the principles of natural justice and the need for an impartial judiciary. It underscored the necessity for judges to not only dispense justice fairly but also maintain public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judicial process. The case served as a reminder of the judiciary’s duty to ensure fairness and the preservation of the rule of law.”

6             Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu and Others [1992] 1 SCR 686

                “In the case of Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu and Others [1992] 1 SCR 686, the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which deals with anti-defection laws.

The case stemmed from a dispute regarding the disqualification of certain members of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly who had defected from their political parties. The primary issue before the court was whether the provisions of the Tenth Schedule violated the freedom of speech and expression and the right to dissent of the elected representatives.

The court, in its judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule and emphasized that anti-defection laws were crucial for preserving the stability and integrity of the democratic process. It held that political parties were essential to the functioning of democracy, and defections undermined the principles of accountability and collective responsibility.

The court clarified that the Tenth Schedule aimed to prevent political defections motivated by personal gains or political opportunism rather than genuine ideological differences. It recognized that political parties had the right to impose discipline on their members to maintain party cohesion.

Additionally, the court held that the Speaker’s decision on disqualification under the Tenth Schedule was subject to judicial review. It reiterated the importance of natural justice and fair procedures in determining disqualification cases.

The judgment in Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu and Others upheld the constitutionality of the anti-defection laws contained in the Tenth Schedule. It affirmed the importance of political stability and party discipline in a democratic system, while also providing safeguards to ensure a fair and just process for deciding disqualification cases.”

7             Indra Sawhney and Ors v Union of India and Ors [1992] Supp 2 SCR 454

                “In the case of Indra Sawhney and Ors v Union of India and Ors [1992] Supp 2 SCR 454, commonly known as the Mandal Commission case, the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutional validity of the implementation of reservations in public employment based on caste.

The case arose from a challenge to the implementation of the Mandal Commission report, which recommended reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public sector employment and educational institutions. The petitioners contended that the extension of reservations beyond the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes violated the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and the basic structure of the Constitution.

The court, in its judgment, recognized the importance of affirmative action in addressing historical disadvantages faced by socially and educationally backward classes. It upheld the constitutional validity of the reservations for OBCs, subject to certain conditions, such as the exclusion of the creamy layer and the limitation of reservations to a maximum of 50%.

The court emphasized that reservations were a means to achieve equality and social justice and that they were not intended to perpetuate casteism or create a new form of discrimination. It held that reservations were a temporary measure and that their continued necessity should be periodically reviewed.

The judgment in Indra Sawhney v Union of India provided a framework for the implementation of reservations in public employment and educational institutions. It affirmed the constitutional goal of achieving social justice and equality while striking a balance between the rights of backward classes and the principles of merit and efficiency in public administration. The case remains a significant precedent in Indian jurisprudence concerning affirmative action and reservation policies.”

8             S R Bommai and Ors v Union of India and Ors [1994] 2 SCR 644

                “In the case of S R Bommai and Ors v Union of India and Ors [1994] 2 SCR 644, the Supreme Court of India addressed the delicate issue of the imposition of President’s Rule (central government rule) in states and the limits on the discretionary powers of the central government.

The case stemmed from the dismissal of state governments in Karnataka, Meghalaya, and Nagaland by the central government under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. The court was tasked with determining the validity of these dismissals and examining the extent of the central government’s power to impose President’s Rule.

The court, in its judgment, laid down important principles to prevent the misuse of Article 356 and safeguard federalism in India. It held that the power to impose President’s Rule was not absolute and unfettered but subject to judicial review. The court ruled that the imposition of President’s Rule could only be justified under exceptional circumstances such as breakdown of constitutional machinery or loss of majority in the legislative assembly.

Furthermore, the court declared that the existence of material justifying the imposition of President’s Rule must be based on objective and relevant factors. It emphasized that the central government must provide concrete evidence to demonstrate the breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state.

The judgment in S R Bommai v Union of India redefined the boundaries of federalism and asserted the supremacy of the Constitution. It curtailed the discretionary powers of the central government, ensuring that the imposition of President’s Rule was not used as a political tool but as a measure of last resort. The case contributed significantly to the protection of democratic principles and the preservation of the federal structure in India.”

9             L Chandra Kumar v Union of India and Ors [1994] Supp 6 SCR 261

                “In the case of L Chandra Kumar v Union of India and Ors [1994] Supp 6 SCR 261, the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutional validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, which sought to establish a specialized tribunal for the adjudication of tax disputes.

The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the Act on the grounds that it encroached upon the jurisdiction of the high courts and undermined the independence of the judiciary. The central issue was whether the Act, by creating a separate tribunal, violated the doctrine of separation of powers and the right to access justice.

The court, in its judgment, held that the establishment of a specialized tribunal for tax matters did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. It emphasized that the judiciary had the power of judicial review to examine the constitutionality of laws, including those that affected the jurisdiction of the courts.

However, the court also ruled that decisions of the National Tax Tribunal could be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the jurisdiction of the high courts. It affirmed that the Supreme Court, as the apex court, had the authority to be the final arbiter on questions of law and could exercise its appellate jurisdiction in such matters.

The judgment in L Chandra Kumar v Union of India clarified the constitutional principles of separation of powers and the role of specialized tribunals in the Indian legal system. It struck a balance between the need for efficient dispute resolution and the preservation of judicial independence, ensuring that access to justice and the rule of law were not compromised.”

10           Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India and Ors [1996] Supp 5 SCR 241

                “In the case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India and Ors [1996] Supp 5 SCR 241, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of environmental protection and the constitutional duty of the state to safeguard the environment.

The case centered around the pollution caused by industries in the town of Vellore, Tamil Nadu. The petitioners sought the court’s intervention to address the pollution problem and enforce environmental regulations. The court had to determine the extent of the state’s obligation to protect and improve the environment under Article 48-A and Article 51-A(g) of the Indian Constitution.

The court, in its judgment, reaffirmed the constitutional significance of environmental protection and held that it was a fundamental duty of every citizen and the state. It emphasized that the right to a clean and healthy environment was a fundamental right derived from the right to life under Article 21.

The court stressed that the principle of sustainable development should guide all environmental decisions, and economic development should not come at the expense of environmental degradation. It directed the state and industries to strictly adhere to environmental regulations and take necessary measures to prevent pollution.

The judgment in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India reinforced the importance of environmental protection as a constitutional imperative. It expanded the scope of fundamental rights to include the right to a clean environment and placed a responsibility on the state and citizens to actively preserve and improve the environment for the present and future generations. The case laid down significant principles for environmental jurisprudence in India.”

11           D K Basu v State of West Bengal [1996] Supp 10 SCR 284

                “In the case of D K Basu v State of West Bengal [1996] Supp 10 SCR 284, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of custodial torture and the protection of fundamental rights of individuals in police custody.

The case arose from a petition filed by the Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, highlighting instances of custodial deaths and torture. The court examined the violation of human rights and the need for safeguards to prevent custodial abuse.

The court, in its judgment, recognized that custodial torture violated the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It emphasized the duty of the state to protect the dignity and integrity of individuals in custody.

The court laid down several guidelines to prevent custodial torture, including the requirement of the police to follow specific procedures during arrest, detention, and interrogation. It mandated the recording of arrest and detention details and the provision of legal representation to the arrested person.

Furthermore, the court established the need for independent investigations into cases of custodial violence and the prosecution of those responsible. It stressed the importance of compensation for victims of custodial torture or their families.

The judgment in D K Basu v State of West Bengal marked a significant milestone in human rights protection in India. It highlighted the imperative of preventing custodial abuse and ensuring the enforcement of fundamental rights. The case brought attention to the issue of custodial torture and led to the formulation of important safeguards and guidelines to protect the rights of individuals in police custody.”

12           Mafatlal Industries Ltd v Union of India [1996] Supp 10 SCR 585

                “In the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd v Union of India [1996] Supp 10 SCR 585, the Supreme Court of India examined the scope of the power of the Central Government to levy excise duty on the clearance of goods under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The case revolved around the interpretation of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, which dealt with the imposition of excise duty on goods cleared from a factory. The issue at hand was whether the Central Government had the authority to levy excise duty retrospectively on goods cleared before the enactment of the amending legislation.

The court, in its judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of the retrospective levy of excise duty under Section 11A. It ruled that Parliament had the competence to enact legislation with retrospective effect, as long as it did not violate any fundamental rights or constitutional limitations.

The court emphasized that retrospective legislation was a well-established legislative practice and could be enacted to remedy deficiencies in the existing law. It observed that the power of the legislature to enact retrospective laws was limited by the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the validity of the retrospective levy depended on whether it amounted to an excessive or arbitrary exercise of legislative power. It held that the retrospective imposition of excise duty in the case was a valid exercise of legislative authority and did not violate any constitutional principles.

The judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd v Union of India clarified the constitutional framework regarding the retrospective imposition of excise duty. It recognized the legislative competence of Parliament to enact retrospective laws and established the principles governing the validity of such retrospective legislation. The case provided important guidance on the extent and limitations of legislative power in relation to taxation laws.”

13           Vishaka and Ors v State of Rajasthan and Ors [1997] Supp 3 SCR 404

                “In the landmark case of Vishaka and Ors v State of Rajasthan and Ors [1997] Supp 3 SCR 404, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace and laid down guidelines to ensure the protection of women’s rights and dignity in the workplace.

The case was prompted by the brutal gang rape of a social worker in Rajasthan and raised the broader issue of sexual harassment faced by women in various workplaces. The court recognized that existing laws did not adequately address this problem and that there was a pressing need to protect women from such harassment.

In its judgment, the court held that sexual harassment violated the fundamental rights of gender equality and the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. It recognized sexual harassment as a violation of a woman’s right to work with dignity and outlined the employer’s responsibility to provide a safe working environment.

The court formulated comprehensive guidelines known as the Vishaka guidelines, which established preventive, remedial, and disciplinary measures to combat sexual harassment in workplaces. These guidelines served as the foundation for subsequent legislation, leading to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act in 2013.

The judgment in Vishaka and Ors v State of Rajasthan and Ors was a significant milestone in women’s rights and workplace equality in India. It recognized the urgent need for legal safeguards against sexual harassment and provided a framework for the prevention and redressal of such incidents. The case highlighted the importance of creating a safe and gender-sensitive environment for women in the workplace, setting a precedent for subsequent legal developments in this area.”

14           Githa Hariharan and Anr v Reserve Bank of India and Anr [1999] 1 SCR 669

                “In the case of Githa Hariharan and Anr v Reserve Bank of India and Anr [1999] 1 SCR 669, the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutional validity of a provision in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) that granted the father automatic guardianship rights over a minor child’s foreign exchange earnings.

The case involved a challenge to the provision on the grounds of gender discrimination, as it conferred automatic guardianship on the father without considering the welfare of the child or the rights of the mother. The court had to determine whether the provision violated the fundamental rights of equality and non-discrimination guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

The court, in its judgment, held that the provision in question was unconstitutional as it discriminated against mothers by automatically excluding them from the guardianship of their minor child’s foreign exchange earnings. The court emphasized the principle of gender equality and recognized that both parents had equal rights and responsibilities towards their children.

The judgment further highlighted that the determination of guardianship should be based on the best interests of the child and not solely on the gender of the parents. It asserted that the welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration in such matters.

The court’s ruling in Githa Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India struck down the discriminatory provision and reaffirmed the importance of gender equality and the rights of mothers in matters concerning the welfare of their children. The case contributed to the evolving jurisprudence on gender justice and parental rights in India, setting a precedent for subsequent legal developments in this domain.”

15           Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra and Anr [2002] 2 SCR 1006

                “In the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra and Anr [2002] 2 SCR 1006, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of the confidentiality of settlement proceedings in divorce cases and the rights of parties involved.

The case involved a divorce settlement between the parties, wherein certain statements made during the settlement proceedings were later disclosed in a book authored by one of the parties. The question before the court was whether the confidentiality of settlement discussions should be protected and whether the disclosure of such information was a breach of trust.

The court, in its judgment, recognized the importance of maintaining confidentiality in settlement proceedings. It held that parties to a settlement have a legitimate expectation of privacy and confidentiality, which should be respected. The court emphasized that such confidentiality was necessary to encourage open and honest discussions in order to facilitate the resolution of disputes.

The court ruled that any violation of confidentiality would be a breach of trust and could have adverse consequences on future settlement negotiations. It further held that the disclosure of settlement discussions could be prevented by granting appropriate injunctions or imposing restrictions on publication.

The judgment in Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra established the principle that settlement discussions in divorce cases should be treated as confidential and protected from public disclosure. The case emphasized the need for parties to have confidence in the settlement process and ensured that their rights and expectations of privacy were respected. It reinforced the importance of maintaining confidentiality in settlement negotiations to promote effective dispute resolution.”

16           Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Ors v Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors [2002] 3 SCR 100

                “In the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Ors v Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors [2002] 3 SCR 100, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of intellectual property rights and the ownership of inventions made by employees in the course of their employment.

The case involved a dispute regarding the ownership of an invention made by an employee of the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (IICB). The question before the court was whether the employee, as the inventor, had the sole right to the invention or whether the rights belonged to the employer institution.

The court, in its judgment, held that in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the ownership of an invention made by an employee in the course of their employment belongs to the employer. It emphasized that when an employee is specifically employed for research and development, the employer should rightfully own the fruits of the employee’s labor.

The court recognized the significance of intellectual property rights and the need for clarity in determining ownership to avoid conflicts. It observed that inventions made in research institutions were often the result of collective effort and substantial investment by the institution.

The judgment in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v Indian Institute of Chemical Biology clarified the position of law regarding the ownership of inventions made by employees in the course of their employment. It provided certainty to employers in research institutions and encouraged innovation by ensuring that institutions could benefit from the intellectual property created by their employees. The case underscored the importance of establishing clear agreements and policies regarding intellectual property rights in employment contracts to avoid ambiguity and potential disputes.”

17           P Rama Chandra Rao v State of Karnataka [2002] 3 SCR 60

                “In the case of P Rama Chandra Rao v State of Karnataka [2002] 3 SCR 60, the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutional validity of a state legislation that imposed a minimum educational qualification as a condition for candidates contesting local body elections.

The case arose from a challenge to a provision in the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, which required candidates for certain offices in local body elections to possess a minimum educational qualification. The petitioners argued that this requirement violated their fundamental right to equality and participation in the electoral process.

The court, in its judgment, held that the imposition of an educational qualification as a condition for contesting local body elections was constitutional. It reasoned that the legislation aimed to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the elected representatives by ensuring a basic level of knowledge and understanding of the issues involved.

The court observed that the imposition of educational qualifications was a reasonable restriction on the right to contest elections. It emphasized that the qualifications were not excessively onerous and were rationally connected to the legitimate aim of promoting better governance.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the provision did not discriminate against any particular group or section of society, as it applied uniformly to all candidates. It also recognized the need for educational qualifications in a modern democratic society to ensure informed decision-making and effective governance.

The judgment in P Rama Chandra Rao v State of Karnataka affirmed the constitutionality of educational qualifications as a reasonable restriction on the right to contest elections in the context of local body elections. The case recognized the importance of ensuring a certain level of knowledge and competence in public representatives to uphold democratic values and governance.”

18           TMA Pai Foundation and Ors v State of Karnataka and Ors [2002] Supp 3 SCR 587

                “In the case of TMA Pai Foundation and Ors v State of Karnataka and Ors [2002] Supp 3 SCR 587, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of autonomy and the right to establish and administer educational institutions by private, non-minority, and minority groups.

The case involved a challenge to government regulations that sought to regulate admission policies and fee structures of private professional educational institutions. The petitioners argued that these regulations violated their fundamental right to establish and administer educational institutions as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.

The court, in its judgment, recognized the significance of autonomy in educational institutions and upheld the right of private educational institutions to determine their admission policies and fee structures. It held that institutions had the freedom to admit students based on their own merit criteria, subject to reasonable regulations to prevent malpractice and ensure transparency.

The court also recognized the importance of minority rights in the context of educational institutions. It held that minority institutions had the right to administer their institutions to preserve their distinct cultural and educational character, while ensuring that admissions were not solely based on religion or community.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the need for a level playing field and equal opportunity in admissions. It held that reservations and affirmative action policies were permissible to promote social justice and uplift disadvantaged sections of society.

The judgment in TMA Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka reaffirmed the autonomy and rights of private educational institutions while recognizing the state’s authority to regulate admissions and fees in the interest of maintaining standards and preventing malpractices. The case contributed to the jurisprudence on the right to establish and administer educational institutions and struck a balance between institutional autonomy and the need for regulatory oversight in the education sector.”

19           P A Inamdar v State of Karnataka (2004) 8 SCC 139

                “In the case of P A Inamdar v State of Karnataka (2004) 8 SCC 139, the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutional validity of government regulations pertaining to admissions in private unaided educational institutions, particularly in the field of professional education.

The case arose from a challenge to certain provisions of the Karnataka Professional Colleges (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006, which regulated admissions and fee structures in private unaided professional colleges. The petitioners argued that the regulations violated the autonomy and fundamental rights of private educational institutions.

The court, in its judgment, held that the state’s role in regulating admissions and fee structures in private unaided educational institutions was permissible, but it should not interfere with the autonomy of these institutions. It recognized that private educational institutions had the right to select students based on their own merit criteria.

The court also emphasized the importance of transparency and fairness in the admission process. It held that admissions should be based on merit, and reservation policies could be applied to promote social justice and diversity, subject to reasonable restrictions.

Furthermore, the court held that regulatory mechanisms should be in place to prevent profiteering and ensure that fees charged by private educational institutions were reasonable and did not exploit students.

The judgment in P A Inamdar v State of Karnataka clarified the constitutional framework for the regulation of admissions and fees in private unaided educational institutions. It affirmed the autonomy of these institutions while recognizing the state’s role in ensuring transparency and social justice in the admission process. The case provided guidance on striking a balance between institutional autonomy and the need for regulatory oversight in the field of professional education.”

20           Technip SA v SMS Holding Pvt Ltd and Ors [2005] Supp 1 SCR 223

                “In the case of Technip SA v SMS Holding Pvt Ltd and Ors [2005] Supp 1 SCR 223, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in India.

The case arose from a dispute between Technip SA, a French company, and SMS Holding Pvt Ltd, an Indian company, regarding the enforcement of an arbitration award. Technip SA sought the enforcement of the award, while SMS Holding argued against its enforceability.

The court, in its judgment, clarified the legal framework for enforcing foreign arbitration awards in India. It held that foreign awards, which were made in countries that were signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, were enforceable in India.

The court emphasized the principle of minimal judicial intervention in the enforcement of foreign awards and recognized the importance of promoting international commercial arbitration. It stated that courts should not review the merits of the arbitration award but focus on the limited grounds for refusal of enforcement as prescribed under the New York Convention.

Furthermore, the court held that public policy concerns could be invoked to refuse enforcement of a foreign award only in exceptional cases where the award was contrary to fundamental principles of justice or violated Indian public policy.

The judgment in Technip SA v SMS Holding Pvt Ltd established the pro-enforcement stance of Indian courts regarding foreign arbitration awards. It affirmed India’s commitment to international arbitration conventions and promoted a favorable environment for cross-border commercial transactions. The case provided clarity on the grounds for refusing enforcement and emphasized the need for minimal judicial interference in the arbitration process.”

21           SBP and Co v Patel Engineering Ltd and Anr [2005] Supp 4 SCR 688

                “In the case of SBP and Co v Patel Engineering Ltd and Anr [2005] Supp 4 SCR 688, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of whether a party could seek an unconditional stay on an arbitral award pending the outcome of a challenge to the award in court.

The case involved a dispute between SBP and Co, a partnership firm, and Patel Engineering Ltd, regarding the execution of a contract. An arbitral award was made in favor of Patel Engineering, and SBP and Co challenged the award in court. SBP and Co sought an unconditional stay on the award, arguing that if they were required to pay the award amount upfront, it would cause irreparable harm in case they succeeded in their challenge.

The court, in its judgment, held that while a court could grant a stay on an arbitral award, it should be subject to certain conditions. It held that a stay on an award could be granted if the party seeking the stay deposited the award amount or provided a bank guarantee for the same.

The court recognized the importance of speedy and effective dispute resolution through arbitration. It emphasized that an unconditional stay would defeat the purpose of arbitration by prolonging the resolution process.

The judgment in SBP and Co v Patel Engineering Ltd clarified the conditions for granting a stay on an arbitral award. It balanced the interests of the parties involved, ensuring that the party challenging the award was not unduly burdened, while also safeguarding the principle of enforcing arbitral awards in a timely manner. The case provided guidance on the requirements for seeking a stay on an award and contributed to the development of arbitration jurisprudence in India.”

22           Rameshwar Prasad and Ors v Union of India and Anr [2006] 1 SCR 562

                “In the case of Rameshwar Prasad and Ors v Union of India and Anr [2006] 1 SCR 562, the Supreme Court of India examined the issue of reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) in public employment.

The case concerned a constitutional challenge to the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Government Order providing reservations in promotions for SC/ST employees. The petitioners argued that such reservations violated the principle of equality and the right to equal opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution.

The court, in its judgment, upheld the validity of the reservations in promotions for SC/ST employees. It held that the State had the power to extend reservations to promotions as a means to uplift and provide equal opportunities for the historically disadvantaged SC/ST communities.

The court observed that reservations were not in conflict with the principle of equality but were a necessary step towards achieving substantive equality. It recognized that SC/ST communities faced deep-rooted social and economic disadvantages that required special measures for their upliftment.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the reservations in promotions should be based on quantifiable data, showing inadequacy of representation and backwardness of the concerned class. It highlighted the need for periodic review to ensure that reservations did not perpetuate the dominance of certain groups and were in line with the constitutional objective of social justice.

The judgment in Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India affirmed the constitutional validity of reservations in promotions for SC/ST employees. The case recognized the importance of affirmative action to address historical injustices and promote social equality. It provided guidance on the conditions and safeguards necessary for the implementation of such reservations, ensuring fairness and preventing misuse.”

23           IR Coelho Dead by LRs v State of Tamil Nadu [2007] 1 SCR 706

                “In the case of IR Coelho Dead by LRs v State of Tamil Nadu [2007] 1 SCR 706, the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutional validity of certain amendments to the Constitution of India made by the Forty-Second Amendment Act, 1976.

The case primarily focused on the validity of two amendments: the insertion of Article 31B, which provided immunity to laws included in the Ninth Schedule from judicial review, and the insertion of Article 31C, which accorded primacy to laws implementing the Directive Principles of State Policy over fundamental rights.

The court, in its judgment, held that the power of judicial review was an essential feature of the Indian Constitution and formed part of its basic structure. It ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule were not immune from judicial review if they violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

The court also held that the primacy given to laws implementing the Directive Principles over fundamental rights was unconstitutional. It emphasized that fundamental rights were the cornerstone of the Constitution and could not be subordinate to the Directive Principles.

Furthermore, the court declared that even constitutional amendments were subject to judicial review. It stated that if an amendment violated the basic structure, it would be deemed unconstitutional.

The judgment in IR Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the power of judicial review. It established the principle that even constitutional amendments could be subject to scrutiny if they violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The case strengthened the protection of fundamental rights and preserved the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary in India.”

24           Common Cause v Union of India and Ors [2008] 6 SCR 262

                “In the case of Common Cause v Union of India and Ors [2008] 6 SCR 262, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of public interest litigation (PIL) and the role of the court in safeguarding the rights and interests of the public.

The case concerned the investigation and prosecution of high-ranking public officials involved in corruption cases. Common Cause, a non-governmental organization, sought the court’s intervention to ensure a fair and impartial investigation and trial in such cases.

The court, in its judgment, reaffirmed the importance of PIL as a powerful tool for social justice. It held that PIL enabled citizens to approach the court and seek remedies for violations of their fundamental rights or matters of public importance.

The court emphasized the need for the judiciary to act as a sentinel on the qui vive, vigilant and proactive in safeguarding the public interest. It held that the court had the power and duty to intervene in cases where public officials were involved in corruption, to ensure accountability and uphold the rule of law.

Furthermore, the court recognized the significance of transparency and public scrutiny in matters of governance. It directed the government to take measures to ensure transparency in the appointment and functioning of officials involved in anti-corruption agencies.

The judgment in Common Cause v Union of India reiterated the court’s commitment to protecting the public interest through PIL. The case highlighted the court’s role as a custodian of the Constitution and a watchdog against corruption and injustice. It contributed to the development of PIL jurisprudence and emphasized the judiciary’s active involvement in safeguarding the rights and interests of the public.”

25           State of West Bengal and Ors v The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [2010] 2 SCR 979

                “In the case of State of West Bengal and Ors v The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [2010] 2 SCR 979, the Supreme Court of India examined the legality of preventive detention laws and the scope of judicial review in matters concerning civil liberties and fundamental rights.

The case arose from a challenge to the West Bengal Prevention of Violent Activities Act (PVA Act), which provided for preventive detention to combat organized violence. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the PVA Act, alleging that they violated the right to personal liberty and due process.

The court, in its judgment, emphasized the importance of striking a balance between individual liberty and the need to maintain public order and security. It held that preventive detention laws could be justified if they were necessary and proportional to the threat posed by organized violence.

The court also clarified the scope of judicial review in preventive detention cases. It held that the court should examine the sufficiency of the material and the compliance with procedural safeguards to ensure that the detention order was not arbitrary or mala fide.

Furthermore, the court stressed the importance of regular review and periodic revocation of preventive detention orders. It held that prolonged or indefinite detention without proper review mechanisms would violate the constitutional rights of the individual.

The judgment in State of West Bengal v The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights reaffirmed the importance of protecting civil liberties while recognizing the state’s duty to maintain public order. The case provided guidance on the principles and procedures to be followed in preventive detention cases, ensuring that fundamental rights were upheld and arbitrary detention was prevented.”

26           Selvi and Ors v State of Karnataka [2010] 5 SCR 381

                “In the case of Selvi and Ors v State of Karnataka [2010] 5 SCR 381, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of the admissibility of evidence obtained through narcoanalysis, brain-mapping, and lie-detector tests, also known as “”truth serum”” tests.

The case involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of these investigative techniques, which were being used by law enforcement agencies to extract information from suspects. The petitioners argued that these tests violated their right against self-incrimination and the right to privacy.

The court, in its judgment, recognized that these tests infringed upon the fundamental rights of the individuals. It held that compelling a person to undergo these tests without their consent violated the right against self-incrimination and the right to personal liberty.

The court emphasized that the admission of evidence obtained through these tests would be a violation of the principles of fairness and justice. It stated that the information extracted through these methods had no evidentiary value and could not be considered reliable.

Furthermore, the court laid down the principle that these tests could only be administered with the voluntary consent of the individual concerned. It emphasized the importance of safeguarding the dignity and autonomy of the individual during the investigative process.

The judgment in Selvi v State of Karnataka recognized and protected the fundamental rights of individuals against the use of coercive investigative techniques. The case established the principle that these tests were not admissible as evidence and upheld the principle of the right against self-incrimination. The decision reaffirmed the importance of protecting individual liberties and ensuring fairness in criminal investigations.”

27           Re Special Reference No 1 of 2012 [2012] 9 SCR 311

                “In the case of Re Special Reference No 1 of 2012 [2012] 9 SCR 311, the Supreme Court of India addressed the constitutional validity of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, which sought to alter the process of appointment of judges to the higher judiciary.

The case arose from a reference made by the President of India to the Supreme Court, seeking the court’s opinion on the constitutional validity of the NJAC Act. The Act aimed to establish a new body, the National Judicial Appointments Commission, to replace the existing collegium system for judicial appointments.

The court, in its judgment, examined the constitutional provisions governing the appointment of judges and the principles of judicial independence. It held that the NJAC Act, which allowed the executive to have a significant role in the appointment process, violated the principles of independence and separation of powers.

The court reaffirmed the primacy of the judiciary in matters of judicial appointments, emphasizing the need to safeguard judicial independence and ensure the selection of competent and impartial judges.

Furthermore, the court held that the collegium system, despite its flaws, was a necessary safeguard to maintain the independence of the judiciary. It highlighted the need for transparency and accountability in the functioning of the collegium and recommended certain improvements to the appointment process.

The judgment in Re Special Reference No 1 of 2012 reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as a guardian of the Constitution and protector of judicial independence. It upheld the significance of the collegium system in maintaining the integrity of the judiciary and ensuring the appointment of qualified and impartial judges. The case had far-reaching implications on the process of judicial appointments in India and the preservation of judicial independence.”

28           Republic of Italy and Ors v Union of India and Ors [2013] 4 SCR 595

                “In the case of Republic of Italy and Ors v Union of India and Ors [2013] 4 SCR 595, the Supreme Court of India examined the issue of immunity from jurisdiction in relation to a civil suit filed by the Republic of Italy against the Union of India.

The case stemmed from the killing of two Indian fishermen by Italian marines who were serving on an Italian oil tanker in Indian waters. The Republic of Italy filed a civil suit seeking the Italian marines’ immunity from criminal jurisdiction and their return to Italy.

The court, in its judgment, analyzed the concept of sovereign immunity and the principles of international law. It held that sovereign immunity was not absolute and could be limited in certain circumstances.

The court observed that while the Italian marines enjoyed functional immunity for their official acts, they did not possess immunity from criminal jurisdiction for acts committed outside the scope of their official duties.

Furthermore, the court held that the killing of the Indian fishermen was not an act performed in the exercise of sovereign authority, but rather a criminal act falling within the jurisdiction of Indian courts.

The judgment emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of victims. It recognized that no state or individual could claim absolute immunity for criminal acts committed outside the scope of official duties.

The case of Republic of Italy v Union of India highlighted the delicate balance between sovereign immunity and the need for justice in cases involving crimes committed by foreign officials. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that sovereign immunity does not shield individuals from accountability for their unlawful actions and reinforced the importance of international cooperation in upholding justice and human rights.”

29           Novartis AG v Union of India and Ors [2013] 13 SCR 148

                “In the case of Novartis AG v Union of India and Ors [2013] 13 SCR 148, the Supreme Court of India addressed the patentability of incremental or minor modifications to existing pharmaceutical drugs under the Indian Patents Act.

The case centered around Novartis’ application for a patent on an updated version of its anti-cancer drug, Glivec. The Indian Patent Office rejected the application, considering the modified drug to be an incremental improvement and lacking innovation.

The court, in its judgment, interpreted Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, which restricts the patentability of incremental innovations. It held that mere improvements or modifications of known substances would not qualify for patent protection unless they exhibited enhanced efficacy or therapeutic benefits.

The court emphasized the importance of preventing the evergreening of patents, which refers to extending the patent term by making insignificant changes to an existing drug. It held that the intent behind Section 3(d) was to strike a balance between incentivizing innovation and ensuring affordable access to medicines.

Furthermore, the court underscored the significance of the public interest in healthcare, stating that patents should not impede access to life-saving drugs or be used to create monopolies in the pharmaceutical market.

The judgment in Novartis v Union of India reaffirmed India’s commitment to safeguarding public health and promoting affordable access to medicines. It set a precedent by clarifying the criteria for patentability of pharmaceutical inventions and curbing the practice of evergreening. The case had significant implications for the pharmaceutical industry and access to affordable medicines in India.”

30           Dr Balram Prasad v Dr Kunal Saha and Ors [2013] 12 SCR 30

                “In the case of Dr Balram Prasad v Dr Kunal Saha and Ors [2013] 12 SCR 30, the Supreme Court of India dealt with medical negligence and the compensation awarded in cases of medical malpractice.

The case involved a tragic incident where the wife of Dr Kunal Saha died due to medical negligence. Dr Saha filed a complaint against Dr Balram Prasad, alleging negligence and claiming compensation for the loss suffered.

The court, in its judgment, recognized the duty of medical professionals to provide a reasonable standard of care to their patients. It held that medical negligence cases must be approached with utmost seriousness, as they involved the violation of a patient’s right to life and health.

The court awarded significant compensation to Dr Saha, taking into account various factors such as loss of companionship, mental agony, and future prospects.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the importance of expert medical opinion in determining negligence. It held that the medical profession itself should play an active role in regulating and monitoring the conduct of its members to maintain high standards of medical practice.

The judgment in Dr Balram Prasad v Dr Kunal Saha highlighted the court’s commitment to upholding the rights of patients and ensuring accountability in cases of medical negligence. It recognized the need for fair and adequate compensation for victims of medical malpractice and set a precedent for addressing medical negligence cases in India. The case contributed to the development of medical jurisprudence and underscored the importance of professional responsibility in the healthcare sector.”

31           Lalita Kumari v Govt of UP and Ors [2013] 14 SCR 713

                “In the case of Lalita Kumari v Govt of UP and Ors [2013] 14 SCR 713, the Supreme Court of India examined the issue of mandatory registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) by police authorities in cases of cognizable offenses.

The case revolved around the question of whether the police were obligated to register an FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offense or if they had the discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR.

The court, in its judgment, clarified that registration of an FIR was mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when the information disclosed a cognizable offense. It held that the police could not conduct a preliminary inquiry or refuse to register an FIR based on their own judgment or assessment of the veracity of the information.

The court emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of victims and ensuring effective investigation and prosecution of offenses. It held that the registration of an FIR provided an important starting point for the criminal justice process and allowed for the initiation of an impartial and objective investigation.

The judgment in Lalita Kumari v Govt of UP and Ors reaffirmed the rights of individuals to have their complaints promptly registered by the police and ensured the fair and efficient functioning of the criminal justice system. It laid down clear guidelines for the mandatory registration of FIRs in cases of cognizable offenses, emphasizing the importance of accountability and transparency in the law enforcement process.”

32           National Legal Services Authority v Union of India and Ors [2014] 5 SCR 119

                “In the case of National Legal Services Authority v Union of India and Ors [2014] 5 SCR 119, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of gender identity and transgender rights, specifically focusing on the recognition and protection of the rights of transgender persons.

The case arose from a petition filed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) seeking legal recognition and protection of the rights of transgender individuals. The court, in its judgment, recognized the right to self-identified gender identity as an integral part of the right to life and personal autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court held that transgender persons should be recognized as a third gender and should be entitled to the same fundamental rights and protections as any other citizen. It emphasized the need to eliminate discrimination and social stigma faced by transgender individuals and called for the formulation of policies and welfare measures to protect their rights.

Furthermore, the court recognized the right of transgender persons to self-perceived gender identity without any medical or surgical intervention. It directed the government to take steps to provide legal recognition, healthcare, educational, and employment opportunities to transgender individuals.

The judgment in NALSA v Union of India marked a significant milestone in the recognition and protection of transgender rights in India. It affirmed the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and inclusivity, ensuring that transgender persons are accorded the same dignity and rights as any other individual. The case played a crucial role in promoting social acceptance, equality, and inclusivity for the transgender community.”

33           Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and Ors v Union of India and Ors [2014] 11 SCR 712

                “In the case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and Ors v Union of India and Ors [2014] 11 SCR 712, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of reservation in higher educational institutions for socially and educationally backward classes.

The case revolved around the validity of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which mandated the reservation of seats for economically weaker sections (EWS) in private unaided schools.

The court, in its judgment, examined the constitutional validity of the Act and held that the reservation of seats for EWS in private unaided schools was a reasonable classification and did not violate the rights of private institutions.

The court observed that the purpose of the Act was to ensure equal opportunities and access to quality education for children from economically weaker sections. It emphasized that education was a fundamental right and a tool for social empowerment and upliftment.

Furthermore, the court held that the right to establish and administer educational institutions was not absolute and had to be balanced with the larger social goals of equality and inclusivity. It upheld the constitutionality of the Act, affirming the government’s role in promoting equitable access to education.

The judgment in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v Union of India recognized the importance of inclusive education and upheld the constitutional validity of reservation policies in private unaided schools. It reaffirmed the state’s responsibility in ensuring social justice and equality in the education system. The case had significant implications for promoting equal opportunities in education and bridging the gap between privileged and disadvantaged sections of society.”

34           Kailash Nath Associates v Delhi Development Authority and Anr [2015] 1 SCR 627

                “In the case of Kailash Nath Associates v Delhi Development Authority and Anr [2015] 1 SCR 627, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of regularization of unauthorized constructions in Delhi.

The case revolved around the regularization of illegal commercial constructions in violation of building bylaws. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had introduced a policy for regularization, allowing unauthorized constructions to be regularized upon payment of a penalty and compliance with certain conditions.

The court, in its judgment, examined the validity of the regularization policy and held that the policy itself was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.

The court emphasized that the regularization policy provided an unfair advantage to violators of building bylaws at the expense of law-abiding citizens. It held that regularization should not become a means for rewarding illegal activities or encouraging violations of building regulations.

Furthermore, the court underscored the importance of preserving the environment and maintaining planned development in urban areas. It emphasized the need for strict enforcement of building regulations to prevent unauthorized constructions and protect the rights of the general public.

The judgment in Kailash Nath Associates v Delhi Development Authority highlighted the court’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and preventing the abuse of regularization policies. It reaffirmed the principle that illegal constructions should not be condoned or rewarded and underlined the importance of maintaining planned urban development. The case had significant implications for urban planning and governance in Delhi and set a precedent for addressing unauthorized constructions in other parts of the country.”

35           Shreya Singhal v Union of India [2015] 5 SCR 963

                “In the case of Shreya Singhal v Union of India [2015] 5 SCR 963, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provided for the punishment of individuals for posting offensive or objectionable content on the internet.

The case arose from a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 66A on the grounds of its overbreadth and infringement of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The court, in its landmark judgment, declared Section 66A to be unconstitutional and struck it down. The court held that the provision was vague, arbitrary, and had a chilling effect on free speech. It emphasized the importance of protecting the fundamental right to freedom of expression and the need to strike a balance between regulation and individual liberties.

The judgment in Shreya Singhal v Union of India was a significant milestone in safeguarding freedom of speech in the digital age. It clarified the scope of restrictions on online speech and reaffirmed the principles of free speech and expression in the digital realm. The case had far-reaching implications, not only for internet users in India but also for the protection of fundamental rights and democratic values in the online space. It underscored the court’s commitment to upholding the right to freedom of speech and expression as a cornerstone of a democratic society.”

36           Supreme Court AOR Association and Anr v Union of India [2015] 13 SCR 1

                “In the case of Supreme Court AOR Association and Anr v Union of India [2015] 13 SCR 1, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of transparency and accountability in the process of appointment of judges to the higher judiciary.

The case challenged the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, which sought to replace the existing collegium system of judicial appointments with a new system involving the participation of the executive branch in the selection process.

The court, in its judgment, declared the NJAC Act and the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, as unconstitutional and void. It held that the proposed system of appointment through the NJAC would compromise the independence of the judiciary and violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

The court emphasized the significance of the independence of the judiciary as a fundamental feature of the Constitution and its role as a guardian of the rights of the people. It upheld the primacy of the collegium system in judicial appointments, where a panel of senior judges would be responsible for the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary.

The judgment in Supreme Court AOR Association v Union of India reaffirmed the importance of maintaining the independence and integrity of the judiciary. It underscored the separation of powers and the need for an impartial and transparent process of judicial appointments to uphold the rule of law. The case had significant implications for the functioning of the judicial system and the preservation of the judiciary’s autonomy.”

37           Union of India v V Sriharan [2015] 14 SCR 613

                “In the case of Union of India v V Sriharan [2015] 14 SCR 613, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of the power of remission of sentence for convicts serving life imprisonment under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the constitutional limits on such power.

The case arose from a challenge to the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to grant remission and release convicts involved in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. The court, in its judgment, examined the scope and limitations of the power of remission conferred upon the executive.

The court held that the power of remission granted to the executive under Article 161 of the Constitution should be exercised in accordance with constitutional principles and guidelines. It emphasized that the power of remission was subject to judicial review and could not be exercised arbitrarily or in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Furthermore, the court held that in cases involving offenses against the sovereignty and integrity of the nation, the opinion of the central government should be sought before granting remission. It recognized the importance of balancing the interests of justice, rehabilitation, and societal welfare in the exercise of the power of remission.

The judgment in Union of India v V Sriharan clarified the constitutional framework governing the power of remission and highlighted the need for a principled and balanced approach. It established important principles to ensure that the power is exercised within constitutional limits and in line with the principles of justice and public interest. The case had significant implications for the determination of remission in cases involving serious offenses and provided guidance to the executive in exercising its powers in a responsible and fair manner.”

38           Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v EMCO Limited and Ors [2016] 1 SCR 857

                “In the case of Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v EMCO Limited and Ors [2016] 1 SCR 857, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of contractual obligations and the interpretation of force majeure clauses in power purchase agreements.

The case involved a dispute between Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) and EMCO Limited regarding the performance of a power purchase agreement (PPA) during the 2001 earthquake in Gujarat. GUVNL sought to terminate the agreement due to force majeure events, claiming that the earthquake had rendered the performance of the agreement impossible.

The court, in its judgment, examined the terms of the PPA and the force majeure clause. It emphasized the importance of giving effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the contract and held that force majeure clauses should be construed narrowly and strictly.

The court held that the occurrence of an earthquake did not automatically trigger the force majeure clause, and it was necessary to examine whether the earthquake directly and materially impacted the performance of the contract. It emphasized that the burden of proving the applicability of force majeure lay on the party seeking to rely on it.

Furthermore, the court held that the doctrine of frustration of contract could not be invoked if the force majeure clause specifically addressed the event in question.

The judgment in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v EMCO Limited provided important guidance on the interpretation of force majeure clauses in contracts, particularly in the context of power purchase agreements. It underscored the importance of clear and unambiguous contractual provisions and the need to establish a direct link between the force majeure event and the inability to perform the contract. The case had significant implications for the construction and interpretation of force majeure clauses in commercial agreements and provided clarity on the allocation of risks and liabilities in such contracts.”

39           Mukesh and Anr v State for NCT of Delhi and Ors [2017] 6 SCR 1

                “In the case of Mukesh and Anr v State for NCT of Delhi and Ors [2017] 6 SCR 1, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of the death penalty and the interpretation of rape laws in cases of heinous sexual offenses.

The case arose from the brutal gang rape and murder of a young woman in Delhi in 2012, which sparked widespread outrage and protests across the country. The court was tasked with reviewing the death penalty awarded to the convicts and examining the legal principles governing the imposition of the death penalty in cases of rape.

The court, in its judgment, reaffirmed the gravity of the offense and recognized the need for a stringent punishment that reflects the collective conscience of society. It upheld the death penalty for the convicts, considering the exceptional nature of the crime and its impact on society.

Furthermore, the court emphasized the importance of safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring a fair trial. It highlighted the need for stricter enforcement of rape laws, including the amendment of relevant provisions to provide for harsher punishment in cases of gang rape and extreme brutality.

The judgment in Mukesh and Anr v State for NCT of Delhi and Ors played a crucial role in addressing the issue of sexual violence against women and setting a precedent for the imposition of the death penalty in heinous rape cases. It reaffirmed the court’s commitment to protecting the rights and dignity of women and ensuring a just and effective criminal justice system. The case had significant implications for the interpretation and application of rape laws and the punishment for sexual offenses in India.”

40           Excel Crop Care Limited v Competition Commission of India and Another [2017] 5 SCR 901

                “In the case of Excel Crop Care Limited v Competition Commission of India and Another [2017] 5 SCR 901, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of abuse of dominant position and the powers of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to impose penalties.

The case involved allegations against Excel Crop Care Limited for abusing its dominant position in the market by engaging in anti-competitive practices. The CCI had imposed a penalty on the company, which was challenged before the court.

The court, in its judgment, examined the concept of abuse of dominant position under the Competition Act, 2002. It held that the abuse of dominant position is an objective concept that requires an examination of the conduct of the company and its effect on competition in the relevant market.

The court emphasized the need for a holistic and fact-based analysis to determine the existence of a dominant position and the abusive conduct. It held that the CCI has wide powers to determine and penalize anti-competitive practices.

However, the court also emphasized the importance of ensuring proportionality in the imposition of penalties and the need for reasoned and fair decision-making by the CCI.

The judgment in Excel Crop Care Limited v Competition Commission of India and Another clarified the legal framework for determining abuse of dominant position and the powers of the CCI to impose penalties. It provided guidance on the factors to be considered in assessing dominance and abusive conduct, ensuring a balance between competition law enforcement and protecting the rights of the companies involved. The case had significant implications for competition law jurisprudence in India and contributed to the development of a competitive market environment.”

41           Common Cause v. Union of India and Ors. [2017] 13 SCR 361

                “In the case of Common Cause v. Union of India and Ors. [2017] 13 SCR 361, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of passive euthanasia and the right to die with dignity.

The case centered around the question of whether individuals have the right to refuse medical treatment or seek passive euthanasia in certain circumstances. The court examined the constitutional validity of the concept of a “”living will,”” which allows individuals to express their wishes regarding medical treatment in advance.

The court, in its judgment, recognized the fundamental right to live with dignity as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It held that the right to die with dignity is an intrinsic part of this right and that individuals have the autonomy to make decisions about their own lives, including decisions related to medical treatment.

The court provided guidelines for the implementation of “”living wills”” and laid down safeguards to prevent abuse. It emphasized the importance of informed consent, the involvement of medical boards, and the necessity for clear and specific instructions in the “”living wills.””

The judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India and Ors. was a landmark decision that established the right to die with dignity and provided legal recognition to the concept of passive euthanasia in India. It brought clarity and guidance on end-of-life decisions, giving individuals the right to make choices about their own bodies and medical treatment. The case had significant implications for medical ethics and the protection of individual rights in the context of end-of-life care.”

42           Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Others [2017] 9 SCR 797

                “In the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Others [2017] 9 SCR 797, the Supreme Court of India addressed the constitutional validity of the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) in Muslim personal law and its impact on the fundamental rights of Muslim women.

The case was filed by Shayara Bano, a Muslim woman who sought to challenge the practice of instant triple talaq, which allows Muslim men to divorce their wives by uttering the word “”talaq”” three times in one sitting, without any opportunity for reconciliation or judicial intervention.

The court, in its judgment, held that the practice of instant triple talaq is unconstitutional and violates the fundamental rights of Muslim women, including the rights to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination.

The court recognized that the practice is arbitrary and not an essential part of Islamic law. It declared the practice as void and set it aside, directing the government to legislate on the matter.

The judgment in Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Others was a landmark decision that sought to address the gender inequality and discrimination faced by Muslim women in divorce proceedings. It emphasized the importance of gender justice and upheld the rights of Muslim women to equal treatment under the law. The case had significant implications for the reform of personal laws and highlighted the need for gender-sensitive interpretations of religious practices.”

43           Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [2017] 10 SCR 569

                “In the case of Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [2017] 10 SCR 569, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgment affirming the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

The case arose from a challenge to the Aadhaar scheme, a biometric identification system implemented by the Indian government. The petitioners argued that the collection and storage of personal data under the scheme violated the right to privacy.

The court, in its judgment, recognized that the right to privacy is a fundamental right that is inherent in the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. It held that privacy is essential for the protection of human dignity, individual autonomy, and personal liberty.

The court adopted a holistic approach to privacy, recognizing that it encompasses not only physical privacy but also informational privacy and the protection of personal data.

The judgment in Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. was a watershed moment in Indian jurisprudence, affirming the right to privacy as a fundamental right. It had far-reaching implications for the protection of personal data and privacy rights in the digital age. The case laid the foundation for subsequent decisions and legislation addressing privacy concerns in various domains, including data protection and surveillance.”

44           Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India & Another [2018] 6 SCR 1

                “In the case of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India & Another [2018] 6 SCR 1, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of passive euthanasia and the right to die with dignity. This case built upon the principles established in the landmark judgment of the court in the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India.

The case involved a plea to recognize the right to execute a “”living will”” or an advance directive, which allows individuals to express their wishes regarding medical treatment in case they become terminally ill and are unable to make decisions.

The court, in its judgment, recognized the right to execute a “”living will”” as part of the right to die with dignity. It held that individuals have the right to refuse medical treatment or to seek passive euthanasia under certain circumstances. The court also laid down guidelines for the implementation and execution of “”living wills,”” ensuring that they are valid, unambiguous, and comply with legal requirements.

The judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India & Another provided legal recognition to the concept of “”living wills”” and established the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right. It provided individuals with the autonomy to make decisions about their own lives, particularly in cases of terminal illness, and ensured that their wishes regarding medical treatment are respected. The case marked a significant development in end-of-life care jurisprudence in India.”

45           Municipal Corporation, Ujjain & Anr. v. BVG India Limited and Ors. [2018] 6 SCR 861

                “In the case of Municipal Corporation, Ujjain & Anr. v. BVG India Limited and Ors. [2018] 6 SCR 861, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of public-private partnership (PPP) agreements and the enforcement of arbitration clauses contained therein.

The case arose from a dispute between the Municipal Corporation of Ujjain and BVG India Limited, a private entity that had entered into a PPP agreement for solid waste management in the city. The agreement included an arbitration clause for resolution of disputes.

The key question before the court was whether the dispute between the parties fell within the scope of the arbitration clause and whether the arbitration agreement was enforceable.

The court, in its judgment, held that arbitration clauses in PPP agreements are valid and enforceable. It emphasized the importance of promoting arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism and upholding the autonomy of the parties to choose arbitration as the preferred mode of dispute resolution.

The court observed that public authorities should not be allowed to evade their contractual obligations or seek remedies exclusively through the courts, thereby burdening the judicial system. It emphasized the need for speedy and efficient resolution of disputes in the context of PPP agreements.

The judgment in Municipal Corporation, Ujjain & Anr. v. BVG India Limited and Ors. provided clarity on the enforceability of arbitration clauses in PPP agreements and promoted the use of arbitration as an effective mechanism for resolving disputes. It reinforced the principle of party autonomy and contributed to the development of arbitration jurisprudence in India.”

46           Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Others [2018] 3 SCR 770

                “In the case of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Others [2018] 3 SCR 770, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of honor killings and the protection of couples who marry inter-caste or inter-religion against acts of violence and discrimination.

The case stemmed from incidents of honor killings and other forms of violence perpetrated against couples who chose to marry outside their caste or religion. The petitioners, an NGO called Shakti Vahini, sought judicial intervention to prevent such acts and protect the fundamental rights of individuals involved in inter-caste and inter-religion marriages.

The court, in its judgment, recognized the significance of individual autonomy and the freedom to choose a life partner. It emphasized that any interference in the exercise of these rights, including through acts of violence, is a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

The court issued guidelines to prevent and address incidents of honor killings, including providing protection to couples, ensuring the registration of inter-caste and inter-religion marriages, and prosecuting those involved in perpetrating violence.

The judgment in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Others highlighted the importance of safeguarding individual autonomy and the right to choose a life partner. It acknowledged the need to protect vulnerable couples from acts of violence and discrimination, and it provided a framework for addressing and preventing honor killings. The case marked a significant step towards combating social prejudices and upholding the principles of equality and human rights in India.”

47           Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice [2018] 7 SCR 379

                “In the case of Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice [2018] 7 SCR 379, the Supreme Court of India addressed the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual same-sex relationships.

The case was a landmark moment for LGBTQ+ rights in India. The court held that Section 377 violated the fundamental rights of equality, non-discrimination, and the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

The court recognized that sexual orientation is an essential attribute of an individual’s identity and that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of human rights. It emphasized the importance of respecting individual autonomy and the right to privacy, including in matters of intimate and personal choices.

The judgment in Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India marked a significant shift in Indian jurisprudence by decriminalizing same-sex relationships and affirming the rights and dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals. It paved the way for greater inclusivity, acceptance, and equal treatment of the LGBTQ+ community in India.

The court’s ruling had far-reaching implications, leading to societal change and a shift in public attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community. It was hailed as a progressive step towards upholding the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and human rights in the country.”

48           Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2018] 8 SCR 1

                “In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2018] 8 SCR 1, commonly known as the Aadhaar judgment, the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutionality of the Aadhaar program, a unique identification scheme implemented by the Government of India.

The case revolved around the question of whether the collection and use of biometric data under the Aadhaar scheme infringed upon the right to privacy and violated the fundamental rights of Indian citizens.

The court, in its landmark judgment, recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected under the Indian Constitution. It held that the collection of biometric data and the mandatory linkage of Aadhaar to various services without sufficient safeguards posed a threat to privacy and individual autonomy.

The court emphasized the need for a robust data protection regime and the importance of informed consent when collecting personal data. It struck down certain provisions of the Aadhaar Act that were deemed unconstitutional and upheld the requirement of proportionality and legitimate state interest when implementing such schemes.

The judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. reaffirmed the significance of the right to privacy as a fundamental right and set a precedent for the protection of personal data and privacy in India. It underscored the need for a balance between state interests and individual rights, marking a significant milestone in the evolution of privacy jurisprudence in the country.”

49           Jarnail Singh & Others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others [2018] 10 SCR 663

                “In the case of Jarnail Singh & Others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others [2018] 10 SCR 663, the Supreme Court of India examined the interpretation of the ‘creamy layer’ concept in the reservation policy for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

The case dealt with the question of whether the creamy layer principle, which excludes certain economically advanced individuals within the OBC category from availing reservation benefits, should be applied to promotions in public employment.

The court, in its judgment, upheld the applicability of the creamy layer principle to promotions. It held that the objective of reservation is to uplift the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections of society and prevent their perpetuation of dominance. The creamy layer concept ensures that the benefits of reservation reach those who genuinely deserve them and are in need of social upliftment.

The court clarified that the creamy layer principle applies not only to initial appointments but also to promotions, ensuring that individuals from affluent backgrounds do not continue to enjoy reservation benefits generation after generation.

The judgment in Jarnail Singh & Others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others provided clarity on the application of the creamy layer principle in promotions for OBCs, reaffirming the intention behind reservation policies and the need to balance the interests of different sections of society. It aimed to strike a balance between social justice and meritocracy, ensuring that reservation benefits are targeted to those who are truly deserving and in need of affirmative action.”

50           Joseph Shine v. Union of India [2018] 11 SCR 765

                “In the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India [2018] 11 SCR 765, the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutional validity of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalized adultery. The case challenged the gender discriminatory nature of the law, as it only held men liable for adultery while exempting women from prosecution.

The court, in its landmark judgment, held that Section 497 of the IPC violated the fundamental rights of equality, non-discrimination, and the right to privacy enshrined in the Indian Constitution. It emphasized that the provision treated women as subordinate to men and perpetuated gender stereotypes.

The court recognized the importance of individual autonomy and the right to make choices in matters of personal relationships. It stated that the institution of marriage is based on trust and mutual respect, and the act of adultery should be addressed as a civil wrong rather than a criminal offense.

By striking down Section 497, the court brought about a significant change in Indian jurisprudence regarding adultery laws. The judgment promoted gender equality, challenged patriarchal norms, and recognized the agency and autonomy of women in personal relationships.

The ruling in Joseph Shine v. Union of India was a progressive step towards ensuring equal rights and dignity for both men and women. It highlighted the need for gender-neutral laws and underscored the importance of reevaluating archaic provisions that perpetuate gender-based discrimination.”

51           Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel Limited and Others [2018] 14 SCR 489

                “In the case of Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel Limited and Others [2018] 14 SCR 489, the Supreme Court of India examined the jurisdiction and powers of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in relation to the telecom sector.

The case revolved around allegations of anti-competitive practices by Bharti Airtel Limited and other telecom operators. The CCI had initiated an investigation and imposed penalties on the companies for abuse of dominant position and cartelization.

The court, in its judgment, affirmed the powers of the CCI to investigate and penalize anti-competitive practices in the telecom sector. It held that the CCI has the authority to examine the conduct of telecom operators and ensure fair competition in the market. The court emphasized the importance of competition law in promoting consumer welfare and economic growth.

The judgment clarified the role and jurisdiction of the CCI in regulating anti-competitive behavior in the telecom industry. It highlighted the need for effective competition regulation to prevent market distortions and protect consumer interests. The court’s decision reaffirmed the commitment to promoting a competitive market environment in India and ensuring a level playing field for all market participants.

Overall, the ruling in Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel Limited and Others strengthened the powers of the CCI in regulating anti-competitive practices, signaling a proactive approach towards promoting fair competition and consumer welfare in the telecom sector.”

52           Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2019] 3 SCR 535

                “In the case of Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2019] 3 SCR 535, the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), which was enacted to provide a time-bound framework for resolving insolvency cases and promoting ease of doing business.

The case challenged certain provisions of the IBC, including the suspension of corporate debtor’s management during the insolvency resolution process and the wide discretionary powers given to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the resolution process.

The court, in its judgment, upheld the constitutionality of the IBC and held that it provides a comprehensive framework for insolvency resolution, balancing the interests of all stakeholders, including the corporate debtor, creditors, and public interest. The court recognized the importance of expeditious resolution of insolvency cases to preserve the value of assets and promote economic growth.

The judgment emphasized the need for efficient and time-bound insolvency proceedings to address the issue of mounting non-performing assets and promote a culture of discipline among debtors. It recognized the IBC as a significant legislative measure to address the challenges of insolvency and provide a predictable and transparent mechanism for resolving financial distress.

The ruling in Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. upheld the constitutionality of the IBC and reiterated the importance of a robust insolvency framework to revive distressed businesses, protect the interests of creditors, and promote a healthy business environment in India.”

53           Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) [2019] 7 SCR 522

                “In the case of Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) [2019] 7 SCR 522, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of arbitration and the scope of interference by the courts in arbitral awards.

The dispute arose from a contract between Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. (the contractor) and the National Highways Authority of India (the employer) for the construction of a highway project. The contract contained an arbitration clause, and the parties resorted to arbitration to resolve their disputes.

The court, in its judgment, examined the validity and enforceability of the arbitral award. It reiterated the principle that courts should generally not interfere with arbitral awards, except in limited circumstances such as violation of public policy or lack of jurisdiction by the arbitral tribunal.

The judgment emphasized the principle of party autonomy in arbitration and the finality of arbitral awards. The court observed that courts should be slow in interfering with the findings of fact or interpretation of the contract by the arbitral tribunal. It recognized that the role of the court is limited to review the award on narrow grounds specified under the law.

The ruling in Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India reaffirmed the pro-arbitration stance of the Indian judiciary and emphasized the importance of respecting the finality and autonomy of arbitral awards. It provided clarity on the limited grounds on which courts can intervene in arbitration proceedings and upheld the principle of party autonomy in resolving disputes through arbitration.”

54           Ashwani Kumar v Union of India and Anr [2019] 12 SCR 30

                “In the case of Ashwani Kumar v Union of India and Anr [2019] 12 SCR 30, the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) and the rules governing the sanction for prosecution of public servants.

The case challenged the requirement of prior sanction from the competent authority before initiating a criminal investigation or prosecution against a public servant accused of corruption. The petitioners argued that this requirement was violative of the fundamental rights of equality and right to life under the Constitution of India.

The court, in its judgment, acknowledged the need to strike a balance between combating corruption and protecting the rights of public servants. It held that the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution does not impede the investigative process but rather serves as a safeguard against frivolous and vexatious cases.

However, the court also recognized the potential for abuse of the sanctioning process and emphasized the need for expeditious decision-making on such requests. It directed the government to frame guidelines for timely disposal of sanction requests and cautioned against delays in the process.

The ruling in Ashwani Kumar v Union of India and Anr upheld the constitutionality of the provision requiring prior sanction for prosecution of public servants under the PCA. It highlighted the importance of maintaining integrity in public administration while ensuring fairness and protection of fundamental rights. The judgment aimed to strike a balance between curbing corruption and safeguarding the rights of public servants.”

55           Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors [2019] 16 SCR 1

                “In the case of Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors [2019] 16 SCR 1, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of judicial appointments and the independence of the judiciary.

The case dealt with the constitutional validity of the procedure followed by the Central Government in appointing members to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The petitioners argued that the government’s involvement in the appointment process compromised the independence of these tribunals.

The court, in its judgment, reaffirmed the principle of judicial independence as a fundamental pillar of the Indian Constitution. It held that the government’s role in the appointment process should be limited to ensuring transparency and accountability, without impinging on the independence of the judiciary.

The court observed that the process of appointment should be guided by merit, competence, and integrity, and should involve the judiciary in a significant manner. It emphasized the need for an independent and impartial selection committee to make recommendations for judicial appointments.

Furthermore, the court struck down certain provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, which allowed the government to make appointments to the NCLT and NCLAT without sufficient involvement of the judiciary.

The ruling in Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors underscored the significance of judicial independence and the need to safeguard the integrity of the judiciary. It emphasized the importance of a transparent and merit-based appointment process that upholds the constitutional principles of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary.”

56           CPIO v Subhash Chandra Agarwal [2019] 16 SCR 424

                “In the case of CPIO v Subhash Chandra Agarwal [2019] 16 SCR 424, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The case revolved around an application filed under the Right to Information Act seeking certain information from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). The CPIO denied the information on the grounds that it was not maintainable as per the Act. The issue before the court was whether the information sought fell within the purview of the Act.

The court, in its judgment, emphasized the importance of transparency in governance and held that the right to information is an integral part of the right to freedom of speech and expression. It recognized the role of the Right to Information Act in promoting accountability, reducing corruption, and fostering a participatory democracy.

The court clarified that the Act should be construed in a manner that maximizes disclosure of information, subject to certain reasonable restrictions. It stressed the need for a purposive interpretation of the Act to ensure access to information that is in the public interest.

Furthermore, the court reiterated that the burden is on the public authority to justify the denial of information and that any restriction on the right to information must be narrowly construed.

The ruling in CPIO v Subhash Chandra Agarwal upheld the significance of the Right to Information Act in promoting transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities. It reaffirmed the citizens’ right to access information and emphasized the responsibility of public authorities to disclose information in a transparent and accountable manner.”

57           Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel v Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors [2019] 16 SCR 275

                “In the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel v Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors [2019] 16 SCR 275, the Supreme Court of India addressed the complex issue of insolvency resolution and the rights of creditors in the context of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The case involved the insolvency proceedings of Essar Steel, a prominent steel manufacturing company. The committee of creditors, comprising financial creditors, had approved a resolution plan submitted by ArcelorMittal, which involved a substantial payment to the financial creditors. However, operational creditors argued that they were being unfairly treated under the plan.

The court, in its judgment, emphasized the need to balance the interests of all stakeholders, including financial and operational creditors, in the insolvency resolution process. It held that the rights and interests of operational creditors should not be unduly compromised, and they should be treated fairly and equitably.

The court clarified that the distribution of funds in a resolution plan should not be skewed in favor of financial creditors at the expense of operational creditors. It stressed the importance of balancing the interests of all creditors and ensuring a level playing field.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the resolution plan must comply with the objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which include maximizing the value of assets, balancing the interests of all stakeholders, and promoting the resolution of insolvency in a time-bound manner.

The ruling in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel v Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors highlighted the importance of fair treatment of all stakeholders, including operational creditors, in the insolvency resolution process. It provided guidance on the equitable distribution of funds and underscored the need for a balanced approach that upholds the objectives of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.”

58           Shanti Conductors Pvt Ltd v Assam State Electricity Board and Ors [2019] 16 SCR 252

                “In the case of Shanti Conductors Pvt Ltd v Assam State Electricity Board and Ors [2019] 16 SCR 252, the Supreme Court of India examined the issue of contract disputes and the jurisdiction of the civil court in matters governed by an arbitration agreement.

The case involved a dispute between Shanti Conductors Pvt Ltd (the appellant) and Assam State Electricity Board (the respondent) regarding a contract for the supply of conductors. The contract contained an arbitration clause that stipulated any disputes would be resolved through arbitration.

The main issue before the court was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to hear the dispute, despite the presence of an arbitration clause in the contract. The appellant argued that the civil court had jurisdiction since the respondent had not initiated arbitration proceedings.

The court, in its judgment, reaffirmed the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz, which means that an arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction. It held that when parties have agreed to resolve their disputes through arbitration, the civil court should refer the parties to arbitration and refrain from adjudicating the dispute.

The court emphasized the importance of upholding the sanctity of arbitration agreements and promoting the principle of party autonomy in choosing the dispute resolution mechanism. It stated that the role of the civil court is limited to examining the validity of the arbitration agreement and referring the parties to arbitration.

The ruling in Shanti Conductors Pvt Ltd v Assam State Electricity Board and Ors clarified the jurisdictional aspect of contract disputes with an arbitration clause. It reinforced the principle that where there is a valid arbitration agreement, the civil court should respect the parties’ choice and refer them to arbitration rather than adjudicating the matter itself.”

59           Keisham Meghachandra Singh v The Honble Speaker and Ors [2020] 2 SCR 132

                “In the case of Keisham Meghachandra Singh v The Hon’ble Speaker and Ors [2020] 2 SCR 132, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of disqualification of a member of the legislative assembly under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, commonly known as the Anti-Defection Law.

The petitioner, Keisham Meghachandra Singh, was a member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly. He challenged his disqualification on the grounds that it violated his right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The key issue before the court was whether disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law infringed upon the fundamental rights of the legislator. The court, in its judgment, held that disqualification under the Tenth Schedule was not violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression.

The court stated that the purpose of the Anti-Defection Law was to curb political defections and maintain the stability and integrity of the legislative process. It emphasized that the objective of the law was to ensure that members of the legislature act in accordance with the principles of party discipline and promote the functioning of a stable government.

The court further ruled that disqualification under the Anti-Defection Law was a regulatory measure aimed at preventing political opportunism and defections for personal gains. It held that such disqualifications were justified in the interest of maintaining political stability and upholding the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution.

The judgment in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v The Hon’ble Speaker and Ors clarified the constitutional validity of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. It affirmed the importance of party discipline and stability in the legislative process while upholding the constitutionality of the Anti-Defection Law.”

60           Sushila Aggarwal and Ors v State NCT of Delhi and Anr [2020] 2 SCR 1

                “In the case of Sushila Aggarwal and Ors v State NCT of Delhi and Anr [2020] 2 SCR 1, the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of contempt of court and the limits of the power of courts to punish for contempt.

The case arose from a contempt petition filed against the appellants for making derogatory and scandalous allegations against a judicial officer. The key issue before the court was whether the act of the appellants constituted contempt of court.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, reaffirmed that the power of contempt was essential for the proper administration of justice, as it upheld the dignity and authority of the courts. However, it also recognized that this power must be exercised cautiously and sparingly to avoid stifling free speech and criticism.

The court emphasized that a contempt proceeding should be initiated only when there is a real and substantial interference with the administration of justice. Mere criticism of the judiciary or expressing dissatisfaction with a court’s decision, without undermining public confidence in the institution, would not amount to contempt.

The judgment emphasized the need to strike a balance between protecting the reputation and independence of the judiciary and safeguarding the right to free speech. It clarified that the power of contempt should be invoked only in cases where the alleged contemnor’s conduct seriously undermines the administration of justice.

Overall, the decision in Sushila Aggarwal and Ors v State NCT of Delhi and Anr reiterated the importance of free speech and the limitations on the power of courts to punish for contempt. It highlighted the need for courts to exercise restraint and ensure that contempt proceedings are used judiciously to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.”

61           Dheeraj Mor v High Court of Delhi [2020] 2 SCR 161

                “In the case of Dheeraj Mor v High Court of Delhi [2020] 2 SCR 161, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of contempt of court and the scope of the power of the court to punish for contempt.

The case involved a lawyer who had made certain allegations against judges of the High Court of Delhi in a social media post. The High Court had initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against the lawyer for scandalizing the court and undermining the administration of justice.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the importance of maintaining the dignity and authority of the courts and recognized the need to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. It reiterated that the power of contempt was essential for the effective functioning of the judicial system.

However, the court also underscored the significance of freedom of speech and expression, particularly for lawyers who play a vital role in the administration of justice. It emphasized that criticism of judges or their decisions should not be stifled unless it undermines public confidence in the judiciary or obstructs the administration of justice.

The judgment highlighted that while the judiciary should be open to constructive criticism, any allegations made against judges should be made responsibly and with due regard for the truth. It emphasized the importance of maintaining the balance between protecting the judiciary’s reputation and preserving the right to free speech.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the lawyer’s social media post did not cross the threshold of contempt, as it did not undermine public confidence in the judiciary or obstruct the administration of justice. It clarified that criticism of judges should be evaluated in the context of the overall system and should not be viewed as a personal attack.

Overall, the decision in Dheeraj Mor v High Court of Delhi reaffirmed the importance of striking a balance between protecting the integrity of the judiciary and upholding the right to freedom of speech. It underscored the need for courts to exercise restraint and ensure that contempt proceedings are used judiciously to maintain public trust in the judicial system.”

62           Internet and Mobile Association of India v RBI [2020] 2 SCR 297

                “In the case of Internet and Mobile Association of India v RBI [2020] 2 SCR 297, the Supreme Court of India examined the validity of a circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) that restricted banks from providing services to entities dealing with virtual currencies or cryptocurrencies.

The case centered around the conflict between the RBI’s concerns regarding the risks associated with cryptocurrencies and the right to carry on a trade or business involving virtual currencies. The Internet and Mobile Association of India, along with various cryptocurrency exchanges and businesses, challenged the RBI’s circular on the grounds that it violated their fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, recognized the significance of technological advancements and the impact of digital currencies in the modern era. It emphasized the need for a balanced approach that considers both the risks associated with cryptocurrencies and the potential benefits they offer.

The court held that the RBI’s circular, which effectively prohibited banks from dealing with entities involved in cryptocurrencies, exceeded the RBI’s regulatory authority. It concluded that the circular was disproportionate and infringed upon the rights of cryptocurrency businesses to carry on their trade.

The judgment underscored the importance of legislative intervention and regulatory frameworks to address concerns related to cryptocurrencies, rather than a complete ban. It recognized the need for a nuanced approach that balances the protection of financial stability and consumer interests with the promotion of innovation and technological advancements.

Overall, the decision in Internet and Mobile Association of India v RBI established important principles regarding the regulation of cryptocurrencies in India. It emphasized the need for a comprehensive legal framework to govern the use and trade of virtual currencies while respecting the rights of individuals and businesses involved in this emerging sector.”

63           Indore Development Authority v Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1

                “In the case of Indore Development Authority v Manoharlal [2020] 3 SCR 1, the Supreme Court of India examined the scope of the power of a development authority to cancel an allotment of land and the rights of the allottee in such a scenario.

The case involved an allotment of land by the Indore Development Authority (IDA) to the respondent, Manoharlal. Subsequently, the IDA sought to cancel the allotment on the grounds of alleged misrepresentation by Manoharlal. The dispute centered around the question of whether the IDA had the authority to cancel the allotment and whether the respondent had a right to be heard before such cancellation.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the principle of natural justice and held that before canceling the allotment, the IDA must provide the allottee with an opportunity to be heard. It stated that the right to be heard is a fundamental aspect of fair procedure, and an aggrieved party should have the chance to present their case and provide clarifications.

The court also clarified that the power of cancellation should be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner and should not be arbitrary or discriminatory. It emphasized that the authority must act within the bounds of the law and follow due process.

The judgment in Indore Development Authority v Manoharlal reaffirmed the importance of the principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative actions. It underscored the need for authorities to provide a fair hearing and follow proper procedures before making decisions that could adversely affect the rights and interests of individuals.”

64           Madras Bar Association v Union of India and Anr [2020] 2 SCR 246

                “In the case of Madras Bar Association v Union of India and Anr [2020] 2 SCR 246, the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2020, which sought to amend various legislations relating to tribunals.

The case revolved around the issue of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. The Madras Bar Association challenged the provisions of the ordinance, arguing that they infringed upon the doctrine of separation of powers by vesting excessive powers in the executive and undermining the independence of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the importance of judicial independence and the separation of powers. It held that the provisions of the ordinance that allowed the executive to make appointments, determine the qualifications of members, and regulate the functioning of tribunals without proper judicial oversight were unconstitutional.

The court stressed that tribunals play a crucial role in the administration of justice and should function independently, free from any executive interference. It emphasized the need for transparent and impartial appointment processes and adequate qualifications for tribunal members to ensure the efficient and effective functioning of the tribunals.

The judgment in Madras Bar Association v Union of India and Anr reaffirmed the significance of judicial independence and the separation of powers as fundamental principles of the Indian constitutional framework. It underscored the need to maintain a balance of power and protect the autonomy of the judiciary in order to uphold the rule of law and ensure justice for all.”