Landmark Cases on Constitution | Indian Polity Important Cases | 2019
Articles Blog

Landmark Cases on Constitution | Indian Polity Important Cases | 2019

October 10, 2019

Hey everybody! I am Priya and you are watching to Finology
Legal. In today’s video, we will know about landmark
cases of constitution. For your better understanding I have categorised
these cases. SO quickly bring your notebook and pen and
lets begin. Also, if you any doubt regarding any case
discussed In this video, please let me know in the comment section, I will be happy to
help. Our 1st category is preamble. So you tell me, what is the significance of
preamble? Is it a part of the constitution? Can it be amended? Can any law be declared Ultra Vires,
only on the basis of preamble? Lets know about these cases. First case is Re Berubari. In this case, Supreme Court said that preamble
is not a part of the constitution and because of that reason, Preamble has no substantive
power. Then we have Golaknath case. In this case the Golaknath family owned 500
acres of land. but the Land Tenure Act allowed them
to keep only a little portion of this 500 acres of land, rest shall be taken by the
government. In this case, the Land tenure Act was challenged It was argued that citizens have a fundamental
right to property, under Article 19. Can fundamental rights be amended? While answering this question, Supreme Court
said that the amending power of parliament is not unlimited but limited. Parliament cannot amend the fundamental right
of the citizens. Then comes the most important, Keshvananda
Bharti case. This case too discussed about restricting
government’s interference in citizen’s Right to Property. See, during 1971-72, some constitutional amendment took place as a result of which of which 2 Kerala Land Reform Acts were added in 9th schedule. Those amendments were challenged in this case. This case has 3 important points, which are very important 1. Supreme Court said that Parliament
can amend the whole constitution including fundamental rights; 2. But the basic
structure of the constitution cannot be touched/amended Third, “basic structure” was defined & specified
in this case e.g. judicial review. Then come Indra Nehru Gandhi case, which is
also known as the Election case. Before this case, Allahabad High Court had
invalidated Indira Gandhi’s election because of corrupt practices. This judgement of the High court was being
challenged in the Supreme Court. As this case was being heard, Parliament passed
39th Amendment Act and inserted Article 329A Now what does this article says? It says that in matters related to elections,
Judicial review cannot be done. Art 329A was challenged in this case. Evaluating all of these things the Supreme
court said that Democracy is the basic structure of the Indian constitution, which means free & fair
election. To continue this basic structure, rule of
law and judicial review are essential. So, while striking down Article 329A, Supreme
Court said that Rule of Law, Democracy and Judicial Review are part of the basic structure
and no amendment can do away with them. Finally we have case of Minerva Mills, where with the help of Preamble – a relationship was established between FRs and DPSPs Supreme Court said that there is no case of
superiority between Part III or Part IV; both are complimentary to each
other. In this case, the controversial 42nd amendment was striked down by the Supreme Court and it firmly held that judicial review
is a part of basic structure and cannot be amended. Our 2nd category is fundamental rights which is discussed from Article 12 to 35. Let have a look on some important articles
of this part. Let`s begin with Article 13. Article 13 talks about – what can be done
in case of violation of FRs what can be done if any law is not respecting fundamental rights. All the case laws related to Article 13 talk
on two issues: 1st, about Judicial Review
and 2nd about the doctrines related to Article 13 let’s have a look – First we have Marbury v. Madison. This is an important case as it created and established the concept of Judicial Review In this case, US Supreme Court said that the Courts have the power to do Judicial Review on Legislative Actions. The counterpart of Marbury v. Madison in India
is L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India. In this case it was said that the SC through Art. 32 & the HC through Art. 226 have the power of Judicial Review. That means the SC & HC can judicially review the legislative actions. SC also held that the power of JR under these 2 Articles is a part of the basic structure of the constitution and no amendment can curtail this power. Now let`s talk about the doctrines. These two cases, A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras & Romesh Thapar
v State of Madras, talk about doctrine of severability. For e.g. if rice and lentil grains
get mixed together, you can separate them. This is what exactly these two cases talk
about. Its said that if some part of an act
is unconstitutional and the rest is constitutional, then only the unconstitutional
part should be striked off and constitutional part should be preserved. Now lets see State of Gujarat v. Ambika Mills – it talks about Doctrine of Eclipse. It was held that doctrine of eclipse is applicable
on citizens as well as non citizens. 3rd doctrine is Doctrine of Waiver. You will find the mention of this doctrine
in topics like Article 21- Right to Life, Attempt to suicide, etc. Doctrine of waiver refers to waving off your
rights. US constitution allows the Waiver of some FRs. In Basheshar Nath v. Income Tax Commissioner,
it was held that unlike the US constitution, In India, waiver of FRs is not allowed. The concept of equality begins from Article
14 of the constitution. This article contains two important principles
of equality; 1. Equality before Law which holds that every person, whether he
is president or a common citizen, is equal in the eyes of law 2. Equal protection of law. Which refer to protection afforded to or treatment
given to such persons who are at unequal/vulnerable position Let`s begin our discussion n equality. Lets assume that you are school Teacher and there are two students. You provide two different papers to them. There was no reason in providing them different
question papers. You treated them unequally, just so, then
it would be a situation of unequal treatment. But, it a student is in 5th standard and another
is in 10th standard. Thus if the reason for differential treat
is their age or their intelligence, then it would accepted as reasonable. This is called intelligible differentia. Now let`s move forward. Now that you have differentiated between two
students, but provided same maths paper, would it be right? No, right. Here we are talking about rational nexus. Meaning that you differentiated between both
kids by using intelligible differentia, now what is your objective? To check that both students are able to solve
question papers meant for their respective class and pass that, so you will provide them
paper of their respective classes. This is called rational nexus. Meaning that there is a link between the reason
of differentiation and the objective that you wish to achieve. Now lets look at these cases. So the principle of intelligible differentia
we talked about, is also known as the old doctrine of was propounded in state of Bombay v. F.N.Balsara. And the second principle of Rational description
was propounded in case of Anwar Ali v. State of West Bengal. So this case is attributed to old principle
of equality and this case is attributed to the nexus test. Then came E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu. We received New doctrine of Equality from
this case, which is followed even today. See, in this case Supreme Court said that
if any action is arbitrary, we shall assume that it is opposed to equality. A very important statement came out of this
judgement and that is “Equality is a dynamic concept.. & Equality & arbitrariness are sworn enemies.” Our final case is Randhir Singh v. Union of
India. This was the case which introduced the concept
of equal pay for equal work. Next is article 15. Article 15 gives us 5 grounds and says that
discrimination cannot be done on these 5 grounds, and It would be wrong to do that. In addition, Article 15 provides that if there
is another rational or valid reason beyond these 5 grounds, and you are discriminating
on that ground, it would be valid. Come, let`s look at the important cases of
article15. I bet you know and understand about the domicile
quota. This was discussed in D.P. Joshi v. State of M.P. in this case, it was
said that place of residence is a valid criteria for classification. If some college charges less fee to locally
domiciled students and more fee to students coming from outside, it would be valid. Then, we have these 3 cases which are very
important to understand article 15. First we have Champkam Dorairajan v. State
of Madras. Clause 4 was added to article 15 because of
this judgement, which provides special powers to the state to make special provisions for
protection of SC/ST/OBC. Now there is M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, Lets sum up the judgement in 4 simple points: 1. Reservation shall have a ceiling limit of 50% and it cannot exceed that. Second they held that for purpose of reservation caste cannot be the sole criteria reservation cannot be given solely on basis of caste, You will have to consider social backwardness
among other things. It was held that classification into “backward”
& “more Backward” is an invalid classification and cannot be done. fourth, They held that art. 16(4) is an exception to art. 16(1) Whatever was held in case of M.R. Balaji v.Union of India maximium of it was overruled
in the subsequent cases. Lastly, we have T. Devadasn case. Carry forward rule was declared as invalid
in this case. What is carry forward rule? Suppose a college is accepting admission for
10 seats; 5 for general category and 5 for reserved category. Now only 2 out of 5 of the reserved category
seats are filled and 3 are left vacant. So what would we do with these 3 seats? You will think about adding it up in the next
year. But if you add these seats to next year, reservation
quota will increase, meaning that what is 50-50 now would not remain the same. That is why this case ruled that carry forward
rule is invalid. After article 15, we have article 16, which provides protection against 7 grounds of discrimination in employment opportunities The protection and rights provided under article 15 & 16 are very important for any welfare state. Dr. Ambedkar has called the rights under article
15 & 16 as “compensatory benefits”. Let`s check out these 3 cases. First, we have N.M.Thomas v. State of Kerala. It was held that reservation in promotion
is valid. Then we have Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karmachari
v. Union of India. In this case, while overruling the T. Devadasan case, SC held that the Carry Forward Rule is valid! Court also held that the ceiling limit of
50% is just a guide line, and if its required,the ceiling limit of 50% can be exceeded as
well. For example, in this case, the reservation
in this case reached upto 64% and it was held to be valid. Then we have Indra Swahney v. Union of India. While overruling judgement in N.M. Thomas case, it was held that reservation in promotion is invalid. You cannot provide for reservation in promotion. But, 77th amendment was passed in 1995 nullifying the effect of this judgement Clause 4 A was added to article 16. Because of the clause 4 A, reservation in promotion is valid. Now lets talk about article 19, which talks about freedom of speech & expression. I will be discussing only these two cases related with this article. First is Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, which we have discussed in the starting of this video as well. What happened in this case was that the petitioners used to publish a newspaper by name of “cross roads”. This news paper would review the activities and schemes of government of Madras and criticise them. What government of Madras did as a response was, on the grounds of public safety, banned entry and circulation of the newspaper in state of Madras. When this case reached to supreme court, it held that company’s right to circulation is protected under article 19(1)(a). they have the right of circulation, but no ground in name of “public safety” has been laid down under article 19(2) i.e. the reasonable restrictions. So you cannot impose ban on their circulation & entry Article 19(2) was amended after this case and Public order, and Public order, Security of State & Incitement to an offence, these three were added to article 19(2). Then we have Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India. Supreme court while creating a distinction in this court held that the advertisements do not come in the category of free speech, but it come in commercial area/ commercial category. Therefore, advertisement of any nature are not covered under article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech, but under commercial speech, i.e under aspect of trade & business. Now lets see article 21, which talks about right to life & personal liberty. There are a lot of cases relating to this on a specific article. But first lets check these 3 cases. And understand article 21. Firsst is A.K.Gopalan case. What happened in this case was that, the petitioners were detained under Preventive Detention Act. Preventing detention refers to detaining someone even before the crime is committed, only on the grounds of suspicion. This act was challenged by the petitioners under article 19 & 21. Supreme court, taking a very narrow view in this case, held that there is no connection between article 19 & 21. Article 19 talks about very specific rights and protections while article 21 talks about protection of very general nature. Supreme court held preventive detention act to be valid and also held that words used under article 21 in the Indian constitution “procedure established by law” & words uses in US constitution, “due process of law” both are different and cannot be interpreted in the same way. A.K. Gopalan case is known for narrow interpretation of article 21. Then we have ADM Jabalpur case. In this case Supreme court refused to recognised fundamental rights that citizens acquire since birth. In this case, court held that during emergency, fundamental rights cannot be enforced, meaning that even article 21 cannot be enforced at time of emergency. And thus, the writs under article 32, like habeas corpus cannot be enforced. after these two cases we have the ray of sunshine i.e. Maneka Gandhi case. It is known for the wider interpretation of article 21. Lets revise the facts about case quickly What happened In this case is that passport office told Maneka Gandhi that she had to submit her passport within 7 days. Maneka Gandhi wrote a letter and asked them to assign a reason as why she need to submit her passport. Ministry of External Affairs respond to them that because of public interest we cannot assign you statement of reasons. This order was challenged by maneka Gandhi under article 21. In this case, while taking wider view, supreme court says that article 14, 19 & 21 are interlinked and any such procedure which deprives life or personal liberty under article 21 that procedure/ law shall have to satisfy the test of article 14 & 19 as well. Additionally the Supreme court held that right too travel abroad is a fundamental right and it is covered under article 21. more importantly court held that if there is any procedure that deprives or curtails life & personal liberty, it is very necessary that such procedure is just fair and reasonable, means, not arbitrary or fanciful. It is necessary for it to be reasonable. Thus these two cases, mainly A.K.Gopalan is know for a narrow view while Maneka Gandhi is known for wider view. Apart from these 3 cases, we also have K.S. Puttaswamy case, which we shall discuss in Recent Judgements.” lets see what other landmark cases are there for article 21. These are also some important cases. In case of Mohini Jain v. Case of Karnataka, right to education was established. Hussainara Khatoon case established right to speedy trial. Right to privacy was established in the case of PUCL v. Union of India. And Olga Tellis & others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & others is related with right to livelihood. Article 25 to 28 deals with minority rights and secularism. Lets check these two cases . First is S.R. Bommai v. Union of India. We will discuss this case under topic of secularism and also while discussing the topic of emergency In this case supreme court held that the concept of secularism in America and India are different. . In India, Secularism is a basic feature and any law which infringes secularism or amends it shall be invalid. 2nd case is Md. Hamid Qureshi v. State of Bihar It was held in this case that ban on cow slaughter is not against secularism. Neither it is unconstitutional nor it is against secularism because it is not an essential practice of any religion. Next category is judiciary. See, appointment of Judges of Supreme Court is dealt in article 124 and appointment of high court’s judges is dealt in article 217. What procedure has been laid down under these articles? Article 124 says thatfor appointment of supreme court judges, president would consult Chief Justice of India and other judges as he may deem necessary For appointment of judges in high court, president shall consult chief justice of india, the governor of the state and the chief justice of that state. Now what is the meaning of world consultation in both of these articles. We have 3 landmark verdicts for this. 1st is S.P.Gupta v. Union of India. Supreme Court of India held that thatword “consultation” held in article 124 (2) & 217(1) does not mean concurrence but it means that it is not necessary that president must consult chief justice of India or necessarily ask for his recommendations and it only means exchange of views. It was also held that if there is any disagreement between Chief Justice of India & president, the ultimate power shall remain with union government And not the chief justice. This case is also known as First Judges case where the supreme court acted against its own self interest. After 11-12 years of this came the Second Judges case. This case overruled First judges case and while discussing the meaning of word consultation upheld that if there is a conflict between Chief Justice of India & President, Chief Justice’s opinion shall be given more importance. By this judgement of 1993, supreme court took its power back from the Union Government and held that the advice of Chief Justice of India is binding on the president. Then there is Third Judges Case where supreme court held that meaning of consultation is not just Chief Justice’s opinion Consultation would mean opinion of 4 justices of India along with opinion of the Chief Justice of India. Next category is emergency. In the topic of emergency, amendments are more important than the cases. Lets look at two different cases. First is Minerva mills v. Union of India. Before Minerva Mills, through 38th, 39th, & 42nd amendment many provisions related with emergency were changed. The situation after 42nd amendment was that, if the President is satisfied that on certain ground if the President is satisfied that on certain ground then that ground could not be brought under judicial review. President’s satisfaction was considered absolute satisfaction. No question or review was allowed In case of Minerva mill v. Union of India, the court held that the ground on which president is proclaiming emergency can be subjected to judicial review. SC & HC can evaluate that ground and if that ground is found to be malafide, irrelevant or absurd, there is no meaning to satisfaction of the president and the emergency would become invalid. 2nd case is S.R. Bommai v. Union of India. Ramjanmabhoomi case happened just before this case and hence also of questions regarding secularism were raised. Answering them, supreme court held that Secularism is a basic feature in the Indian constitution. In addition, while answering to the issue of emergency, Supreme court held that power that president has, to proclaim emergency, is not absolute. That power is conditional. The pre requisite to this condition is that there must be some relevant ground on whose basis you wish to proclaim emergency If the ground is not relevant there is no value of President’s satisfaction and the emergency shall be invalid. Thus, because of these two cases, president’s satisfaction can be a subject of judicial review. Next category is of amendments article 368. Be careful that when you are studying the topics of amendment or are reading related cases also read cases related with article 13. Because almost similar questions have raised in both of these. For example, the questions that were raised regarding article 368 were that if parliament has unlimited power to amend? Can parliament amend the fundamental rights? And if it can, can such amendments be subject to judicial review? Lets have alook on these cases and find out the answers. First we have Shankari prasad case where 1st amendment act was challenged. By this amendment act, article 31 A 31 B were inserted. Supreme court held in this case that the parliament has unlimited power to amend and can amend any part of constitution if it so wants, even the fundamental rights. Same judgement was followed up in Sajjan Singh’s case where 17th amendment was challenged. Supreme Court repeated that yes, parliament has complete power to amend and can amend any part of the constitution. Same amendment was challenged in the Golaknath case the supreme court gave a different judgement in this case. Overruling the above 2 cases, it was held that that parliament does not have unlimited power, but limited power. And parliament can never amend fundamental rights of the citizens. So, in Golaknath case it was held that Parliament does not have power to amend the fundamental rights. After Golaknath Judgement, Parliament brought 24th amendment. And adds clause 3 to article 13. Article 13 (3) says that whatever amendments are happening through article368, cannot be made subject to judicial review. This very 24th amendment, through which article 13 (3) was added to the constitution was challenged in Keshavananda Bharti case. While overruling Golaknath’s judgment, the supreme court held in this case that Parliament has wide powers to amend but those powers are not unlimited, but limited. If it wishes, parliament can amend the whole constitution including the fundamental rights but the basic features of the constitution cannot be amended by the parliament. I hope that you liked this video. If yes, then subscribe to my channel. In next video, we will discuss about some of the important recent judgement of few previous years. For more information, you can follow me on my Instagram page, that’s it for now, see you in the next class, bye-bye!

Only registered users can comment.

  1. Hello! So how did you find this video? Based on your comments I will publish the next video which will be on Recent Judgements.
    👀 Do check the description box for the PDF! 👀

  2. Please Make a detailed video on Cases in category of Preamble. All the 5cases are most important to understand other parts related to Preamble and fundamental rights

  3. Absolute power pack for us who do study without coaching for cj preperation..ur way of explaining is feels like i m listning u live.thank u mam

  4. Yeah It's Awesome With Constitutional Law…. I Used To Prefer Finology Priya Class For Our Students and It's A Ready Reckoner For Points Wise Understanding. Thanks Priya For Your Vibrant Law Class.

  5. Thank you mam you explain very well.
    I was searching for important judgement of constitution n I found Ur video

  6. Can you help me ? I want one case of constitution which is not include the writ petition and which is decided by supreme court in the year 2014-2018.


  8. Thank you mam . Would you please suggest one book where all the land mark cases are described in a lucid language ? I'm a UPSC aspirant

  9. Please higlight the Status of preamble in kesavandan case… As it was declared part of constitution in this case

  10. Meri ma age 80 yer ki hai South Delhi me 60 gaj ke kache makan me niwas hai 2013 Kiraye Ka sivil suit Kiya that meri ma par parti ne sabut me Jamabandi .farad. demarcation .arkitektar se Banai par shabit nahi kar paya ki hum us ke Kiraye daar hai meri ma 1968 se us Ghar me niwas Kar rahi hai 2017 sivil suit kharij ho Gaya hai Aaj south Delhi m c d is makan ki Zameen ko aapna bataya rahi hai high court ke aadesh par humra ghar demolish Kar diya hai par us parson ne jis ne hum par cese Kiya that 920 gan Zameen aapni batata hai or 60 gaj meri ma Ka niwas hai us parson 5 . registry Kari hai Aaj 2019 me position Ka sivil suit Kiya hai Saket us parson ne court me high court ki nexst date 10 actober ki hai aab meri ma ko ligal Kay Karna Chahiye Hamari madad kare

  11. Meri ma age 80 yer ki hai South Delhi me 60 gaj ke kache makan me niwas hai 2013 Kiraye Ka sivil suit Kiya that meri ma par parti ne sabut me Jamabandi .farad. demarcation .arkitektar se Banai par shabit nahi kar paya ki hum us ke Kiraye daar hai meri ma 1968 se us Ghar me niwas Kar rahi hai 2017 sivil suit kharij ho Gaya hai Aaj south Delhi m c d is makan ki Zameen ko aapna bataya rahi hai high court ke aadesh par humra ghar demolish Kar diya hai par us parson ne jis ne hum par cese Kiya that 920 gan Zameen aapni batata hai or 60 gaj meri ma Ka niwas hai us parson 5 . registry Kari hai Aaj 2019 me position Ka sivil suit Kiya hai Saket us parson ne court me high court ki nexst date 10 actober ki hai aab meri ma ko ligal Kay Karna Chahiye Hamari madad kare

  12. आपका पढ़ाने का जानकारी देने का तरीका अच्छा लगा।
    कृपया आपसे एक जरुरी बात प्राप्त करनी है कृपया कर जरूर बताये
    राजस्थान सरकार एक puc कम्पनी के लिये mining के लिये आदिवासियों की जमीनों को अवाप्त करने की प्रकिया चलाई तथा इसी प्रक्रिया में उस कम्पनी का नाम खातेदारी में दर्ज कर दिया है और
    बहौत ही कम वेल्यू का मुआवजा दिया जा रहा है
    अब गाँव वाले भोले भाले आदिवासी क्या करें

    उनका जीवन यापन कैसे होगा
    क्या सुप्रीम कोर्ट की शरण ली जाये

    कृपया मार्गदर्शन देवे

  13. Super hit video… But vo balaji wale case mein jo colour apne use kiya wo dikhta nh to plz mam use some other colour

  14. Alongwith name of case kindly cite the book where it has been reported i.e. complete citation which makes it easy for candidates of judicial preparation

  15. Kindly add the bookes of law where it has been cited regarding above mentioned cases pertains to constitution
    Ramesh Goyal

  16. Plaintiff file permanent injunction suit against defedents co owner and co shared .Send important judgment in favour of decedent's

  17. i have completed my graduation this year by 5YDC course . This video took me to my 2nd year classes . Very informative video . Loved your way of Teaching . Madem ji classes dia karo Judiciary examination ki

  18. Best for upsc and GPSC student..
    The way of explaination
    The command in laguage
    The way of speaking
    Fantastic… good working.. ma'am

  19. Kindly make a video on Court martial proceedings or Force Court proceedings in BSF, ITBP, Assam Rifles, SSB, Cost Guard, Army, Air Force and Navy.

  20. Hi, Could you please make a video on impeachment of Supreme court judge, High court judge and other subordinate judges because nowadays corruption sky rocketed people are loosing faith on our current judiciary which is polluted with criminal politicians and corruption government officials, so people must know how to question and demand corruption free judiciary is our topmost priority for country healthy development in all spheres. I really appreciate your channel giving good important information to fellow indians to know our law and constitution it is every body responsibility. If you could make people questioning awareness on corrupted judiciary many will follow your videos in more number. thanks for reading my lengthy request.

  21. i would lyk u to discuss on the topic of governor, their issues, governor rule n powers (jnk),their casses etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *