Landmark court judgments shaped how power is limited, how liberty is protected, and how the State answers citizens, a reality often reflected in the Latest News in India. The court record reads like a timeline of real-life conflict. And yes, it still feels messy sometimes.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The Supreme Court set the “basic structure” limit on Parliament’s amending power, saying core constitutional features cannot be altered. That single idea steadied Indian democracy during tough political years. The phrase sounds technical, but its effect is plain. Power got a boundary, finally.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
This case widened Article 21 and tied “procedure” to fairness, not mere paperwork. It pushed courts to test State action on reasonableness, not just legality. Many later rights claims leaned on this logic. And the ripple never really stopped.
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
The judgment struck down caste-based seat allocation under the old framework, triggering a constitutional response through amendments. It became an early flashpoint on equality versus affirmative action. The debate moved into legislatures, then back into courts. That back-and-forth still continues.
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India – Mandal Case (1992)
The Mandal ruling upheld OBC reservations while laying down limits, especially around total caps and “creamy layer”. It framed how State support is designed in jobs and education. Social arguments got legal vocabulary. People still argue, loudly.
| Issue | What the court settled |
| OBC reservation | Allowed under equality provisions |
| Overall quota limit | 50% cap treated as a guiding ceiling |
| Creamy layer | Exclusion accepted for OBC benefits |
| Promotions | Reservation in promotions restricted in that era |
| Backwardness test | Needed objective basis, not slogans |
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
This ruling tightened the misuse of President’s Rule and pushed federal balance into the centre of constitutional practice. It required stronger scrutiny before elected State governments could be dismissed. Politics did not vanish, but the rules got sharper. That matters on bad days.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Vishaka filled a legal gap on workplace sexual harassment, setting guidelines before Parliament enacted a statute years later. It changed office culture in small steps, not overnight. One practical thing stood out, and it still reads plainly.
- Written complaint process inside workplaces
- Complaint committee with an external member
- Employer duty to prevent and act
- Protection against retaliation
Sometimes the basics are the hard part.
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
The court linked speedy trial to Article 21 and exposed the scale of undertrial detention. It forced attention on legal aid, bail, and court delays. This was not glamorous law, just urgent. And it hit the poorest first.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India – Right to Privacy (2017)
A nine-judge bench affirmed privacy as a fundamental right, tying it to dignity and liberty. It changed how the State must justify surveillance, data collection, and intrusion. Digital life made the issue unavoidable. The judgement spoke in modern language, for once.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
The court read down Section 377 for consenting adults, ending criminal punishment for same-sex relations. It recognised dignity and equal citizenship in clear terms. Families and workplaces faced new conversations. It felt overdue to many.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down for vagueness and chilling effect on speech. Online arrests for posts had created fear, and the court responded directly. Speech got breathing space on the internet. But the fight for free expression remains noisy.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
Instant triple talaq was set aside, addressing a practice that left women exposed to sudden marital breakdown. The judgment pushed gender equality into personal law debates. It also fuelled legislative action later. Some welcomed it, some resisted, as expected.
NALSA v. Union of India (2014)
The court recognised transgender persons as a “third gender” and affirmed rights linked to equality and dignity. It also pressed governments to act on welfare, identity documents, and access. Implementation has been uneven. Still, the legal recognition changed the terms of discussion.
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
The election dispute case tested democratic fairness during a tense political phase. It reinforced that no public office is above legal scrutiny. The case also shaped later thinking on constitutional amendments and judicial review. It remains politically sensitive, even now.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
The court linked livelihood to the right to life, while also permitting eviction with due procedure. It acknowledged that pavement dwellers were not criminals by default. Cities got a constitutional mirror held up. Urban India still struggles with that mirror.
MC Mehta Environmental Cases (1986–ongoing)
A long line of cases pushed environmental protection into the Article 21 space, affecting pollution control, industrial safety, and public health. The court often used strict directions to force action. It helped, though it also raised questions on execution capacity. The air still feels rough on many mornings.
FAQs
1) Why do landmark court judgments that changed Indian society keep getting cited in policy debates today?
Because they set enforceable constitutional tests that officials must follow, even during political pressure or public outrage.
2) How did Kesavananda Bharati affect Parliament’s power in practical terms for everyday citizens?
It limited amendments that would weaken core constitutional protections, so basic rights cannot be removed casually.
4) Why is the Vishaka case still mentioned after the 2013 workplace harassment law exists?
It created the first workable framework and set duties on employers, shaping how committees and complaints operate.
5) Do the MC Mehta environmental cases still matter in cities facing pollution and industrial risks?
Yes, courts still rely on those principles to order clean-up steps, safety checks, and public health protections.
