Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala

What the Court decided: By a 7–6 majority, the Court held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is very wide, but it is not unlimited. Parliament cannot use Article 368 to alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure. The judgment did not give a closed list; later cases identified features such as constitutional supremacy, rule of law, judicial review, separation of powers, democracy, secularism, federalism and the dignity/liberty values in appropriate contexts.

Importance and impact: This became the foundation of Indian constitutional amendment review. It preserves the distinction between amending the Constitution and destroying its identity. It also made judicial review of constitutional amendments a central feature of Indian constitutional law.

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India

What the Court decided: The Supreme Court rejected a narrow reading of Article 21. It held that a procedure depriving a person of life or personal liberty must be fair, just and reasonable, not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. Articles 14, 19 and 21 were understood as interconnected protections rather than isolated compartments.

Importance and impact: The decision transformed Article 21 into a broad source of substantive constitutional protection. Later cases used this approach in recognising or strengthening rights connected with dignity, privacy, livelihood, legal aid, clean environment and other aspects of meaningful life.

Mohd. Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum

What the Court decided: The Supreme Court held that a divorced woman unable to maintain herself could seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Court treated Section 125 as a secular, social-justice remedy and held that payment of mahr did not by itself necessarily discharge the statutory maintenance obligation where the statutory conditions were met.

What happened afterward: The judgment produced intense public and political debate about personal law, gender justice and the scope of secular criminal procedure. Parliament enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Later judicial decisions interpreted that legislation and the relationship between it and Section 125.

Importance and impact: The case remains central to constitutional debates about gender equality, maintenance, personal law, secularism and the Directive Principle concerning a Uniform Civil Code in Article 44. The case should be studied together with the later legislative response rather than as if the 1985 ruling alone settled all subsequent law.

Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation

What the Court decided: The Court held that the right to livelihood is an important facet of the right to life under Article 21 because deprivation of livelihood can make life itself impossible to sustain. At the same time, the Court did not recognise an absolute fundamental right to occupy public pavements; lawful regulation could occur if constitutional and procedural requirements were met.

Importance and impact: The case strengthened the dignity-centred interpretation of Article 21 and connected constitutional life with economic survival. It is also important because the Court balanced individual hardship with legitimate municipal regulation rather than treating either side as absolute.

Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa

What the Court decided: The Supreme Court recognised that compensation can be an appropriate public-law remedy for established violation of Article 21. Such compensation is distinct from ordinary private-law damages or a criminal prosecution. The Court awarded compensation and stressed the constitutional responsibility of the State where custodial violence or death results in violation of fundamental rights.

Importance and impact: The decision strengthened the idea that Fundamental Rights must have effective remedies. It helped develop constitutional tort/public-law compensation jurisprudence, later used in custodial death, illegal detention and other serious rights-violation cases.

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India

What the Court decided: The Court shifted the constitutional balance toward judicial primacy in appointments and developed the collegium system. The Chief Justice of India was given a central role, acting through consultation with senior judges. The Court reasoned that judicial independence is a constitutional requirement and that appointments should not be controlled by the executive alone.

Importance and impact: The judgment created the Second Judges Case version of the collegium system. The later Third Judges Case (1998) clarified the collegium’s composition and consultation process. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) amendment/statute, restoring the collegium framework. Thus, the 1993 case is a major turning point in India’s law on judicial appointments.

Vishaka v State of Rajasthan

What the Court decided: The Court held that workplace sexual harassment violates constitutional guarantees including equality, non-discrimination, freedom to pursue an occupation and life with dignity. Because there was a legislative vacuum, the Court framed the Vishaka Guidelines for employers and institutions to prevent and address sexual harassment.

Importance and impact: Vishaka is a leading example of judicial protection of Fundamental Rights during a legislative vacuum. The guidelines operated until Parliament enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v Union of India

What the Court decided: The Supreme Court rejected the specific request to withdraw treatment from Aruna, but it used the case to develop a legal framework for passive euthanasia—withdrawal/withholding of life-sustaining treatment under safeguards. The Court distinguished active euthanasia and insisted on safeguards involving medical assessment and judicial oversight under the framework then laid down.

Importance and impact: The judgment was a major step in India’s law on end-of-life medical decisions and Article 21. The legal position later evolved through subsequent Supreme Court decisions concerning advance directives and passive euthanasia, so students should not treat the 2011 safeguards as the final form of today’s law.

Indra Sawhney v Union of India

What the Court decided: The Court upheld reservation for socially and educationally backward classes under Article 16(4), subject to constitutional limitations. It accepted the principle of excluding the creamy layer so that benefits would focus on those who remain disadvantaged. The Court also treated the 50% ceiling as the general rule, while recognising that extraordinary circumstances could require careful consideration.

Importance and impact: Indra Sawhney is the foundational case for modern OBC reservation jurisprudence. It distinguished formal equality from substantive equality and explained how affirmative action can be compatible with Article 16. Later constitutional amendments and cases changed parts of the reservation landscape, so later developments should be studied separately.

Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India

What the Court did: In February 1989, the Supreme Court approved an overall settlement under which Union Carbide Corporation was to pay US$470 million to the Union of India for the benefit of victims, and the Court ordered termination of the then-pending civil and criminal proceedings covered by the settlement. The order was made in the context of the enormous human suffering and the need for immediate relief.

Importance and impact: The case became a major reference point in Indian mass-tort, environmental and corporate-liability debates. It also generated continuing discussion about adequacy of compensation, accountability and the relationship between settlement and criminal liability. Later proceedings revisited aspects of the Bhopal litigation, so the 1989 settlement should not be treated as the end of every legal issue arising from the disaster.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India

What the Court decided: A unanimous nine-judge Constitution Bench held that privacy is a fundamental right, protected as an intrinsic part of life and personal liberty under Article 21 and also as part of the freedoms in Part III. The Court overruled earlier contrary positions to the extent they denied constitutional protection for privacy.

Importance and impact: The judgment constitutionalised privacy across multiple dimensions: bodily privacy, informational privacy, decisional autonomy, family and intimate choices, and control over personal information. It became a foundational precedent for later cases involving Aadhaar, sexual orientation, reproductive autonomy, data and personal liberty.

S.R. Bommai v Union of India

What the Court decided: The Supreme Court held that the President’s satisfaction under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. Where the issue is whether a ministry has majority support, the normal constitutional method is a floor test in the legislative assembly rather than reliance only on subjective political assessments. The Court also treated secularism and federalism as important constitutional principles and imposed substantial limits on arbitrary use of Article 356.

Importance and impact: Bommai strengthened State governments against arbitrary dismissal and reinforced federalism, legislative accountability and judicial review. It is routinely studied for the constitutional relationship between the Union and States and the safeguards surrounding President’s Rule.

Minerva Mills v Union of India

What the Court decided: The Supreme Court held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is limited and that Parliament cannot use Article 368 to convert its limited amending power into an unlimited power. The Court also invalidated the attempt to remove judicial review of constitutional amendments. Importantly, the Court emphasised the balance and harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles as part of the constitutional structure.

Importance and impact: Minerva Mills strengthened Kesavananda Bharati’s Basic Structure Doctrine. It showed that the doctrine applies not only to individual rights but also to institutional principles such as limited government, judicial review and constitutional balance.

Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India

What the Court decided: A Constitution Bench unanimously held that Section 377 was unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalised consensual sexual conduct between adults. The provision remained applicable to non-consensual sexual acts, acts involving minors, and bestiality as covered by the law.

Importance and impact: The judgment applied equality, non-discrimination, expression, dignity, privacy and decisional autonomy to sexual orientation. It marked a major development in constitutional liberty and minority-rights jurisprudence and rejected the idea that constitutional rights depend on majority social approval.

Shreya Singhal v Union of India

What the Court decided: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in its entirety as unconstitutional. The Court found that the expressions used in the provision were too vague and could create a chilling effect on protected speech. It distinguished between discussion, advocacy and incitement, observing that restrictions on speech must fit within the grounds permitted by Article 19(2).

Importance and impact: The judgment became a leading Indian authority on internet free speech, vagueness and chilling effect. It also clarified that mere offensiveness or annoyance is not by itself a constitutional ground for restricting speech under Article 19(2).