Landmark Supreme Court Judgments for UPSC Notes: Kesavananda Bharati, Maneka Gandhi, Puttaswamy, Indra Sawhney, Bommai, Vishaka and Environment Cases Explained Theme-wise
Komal Gupta
UPSC Exam Expert & Content Editor
In this note
- 1.Why Learn the Landmark Judgments?
- 2.Basic Structure and the Amendment Power
- 3.Right to Life, Liberty and Dignity (Article 21)
- 4.Freedom of Speech and Civil Liberties
- 5.Federalism, Governance and the Executive
- 6.Social Justice and Reservation
- 7.Environment and Public Interest Litigation
- 8.Principles to Remember
- 9.The Mains Angle
- 10.Previous-Year Style Practice
- 11.Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
PDF Notes: Landmark Supreme Court Judgments for UPSC Notes: Kesavananda Bharati, Maneka Gandhi, Puttaswamy, Indra Sawhney, Bommai, Vishaka and Environment Cases Explained Theme-wise
Premium PDF · one-time payment of ₹5 · instant access
The Supreme Court of India has done more than decide disputes. Through its landmark judgments, it has defined the basic structure of the Constitution, widened the right to life, protected the environment, and brought the justice to the weaker sections. For UPSC, the landmark cases are important in the Prelims ("Which case is related to the basic structure?", "In which case did the Supreme Court recognise the right to privacy?") and in the Mains (as examples in GS II, the Essay and the Ethics paper). These notes arrange the important judgments by theme: constitutional supremacy, fundamental rights, federalism, social justice, environment and the recent rulings, with the year, the key holding and the memory tip.
Why Learn the Landmark Judgments?
In UPSC, a case name alone is not enough; you must know what the Court decided and why it matters. This knowledge also adds weight to the answers of the Mains. Read these notes with our notes on the Indian Judiciary, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties to understand the constitutional context.
Basic Structure and the Amendment Power
| Case | Year | What the Court Held |
|---|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad v. Union of India | 1951 | Parliament can amend the Fundamental Rights under Article 368 |
| Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan | 1965 | Reaffirmed Parliament's power to amend the Fundamental Rights |
| Golaknath v. State of Punjab | 1967 | Parliament cannot amend the Fundamental Rights |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | 1973 | Parliament can amend any provision, but cannot destroy the basic structure; the basic structure doctrine was born |
| Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain | 1975 | Free and fair elections and judicial review are a part of the basic structure |
| Minerva Mills v. Union of India | 1980 | Limited power of amendment and judicial review are a part of the basic structure; the balance between the Fundamental Rights and the DPSP |
| I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu | 2007 | Laws in the Ninth Schedule can be reviewed if they violate the basic structure |
Right to Life, Liberty and Dignity (Article 21)
| Case | Year | What the Court Held |
|---|---|---|
| A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras | 1950 | A narrow view: 'procedure established by law' only needs a law, not a fair one |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | 1978 | The procedure must be fair, just and reasonable; Articles 14, 19 and 21 are linked; the broad interpretation of the right to life |
| ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla | 1976 | The Habeas Corpus case during the Emergency: the rights could be suspended; later seen as a wrong judgment |
| Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation | 1985 | Right to livelihood is a part of the right to life (the pavement dwellers case) |
| Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh | 1993 | Right to education up to the age of 14 is a part of Article 21 |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan | 1997 | Guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace, later turned into the 2013 Act |
| D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal | 1997 | Guidelines on the arrest and the detention, against custodial violence |
| Common Cause v. Union of India | 2018 | Right to die with dignity: passive euthanasia and living will are allowed under the safeguards |
| K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India | 2017 | Right to privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21; the Aadhaar case followed in 2018 |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India | 2018 | Section 377 was struck down in so far as it criminalised the consensual same-sex acts between adults |
| Joseph Shine v. Union of India | 2018 | Adultery was decriminalised; Section 497 IPC was struck down |
| Shayara Bano v. Union of India | 2017 | Instant triple talaq was held unconstitutional |
| NALSA v. Union of India | 2014 | The transgender persons recognised as the 'third gender' with the right to the self-identified gender |
Freedom of Speech and Civil Liberties
| Case | Year | What the Court Held |
|---|---|---|
| Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras | 1950 | Freedom of the press is a part of the freedom of speech |
| Shreya Singhal v. Union of India | 2015 | Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down as it violated the freedom of speech |
| People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India | 2013 | The NOTA option on the voting machines |
| Lily Thomas v. Union of India | 2013 | The legislators convicted for a serious offence are disqualified immediately |
| Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh | 2014 | Registration of an FIR is mandatory when a cognisable offence is disclosed |
| Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab | 1980 | The death penalty is constitutional only in the 'rarest of rare' cases |
Federalism, Governance and the Executive
| Case | Year | What the Court Held |
|---|---|---|
| State of West Bengal v. Union of India | 1963 | The Union has a stronger position, with a federal structure of a special kind |
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India | 1994 | Judicial review of the President's Rule; federalism and secularism are basic features; floor test |
| Vineet Narain v. Union of India | 1997 | Directions to give the CBI independence and the Central Vigilance Commission a statutory status |
| Prakash Singh v. Union of India | 2006 | Directions for the police reforms |
| Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India | 2018 | The Lieutenant Governor must act on the aid and advice of the elected government except in the matters reserved for him |
| Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India | 2006 | The open ballot in the Rajya Sabha elections was upheld |
Social Justice and Reservation
| Case | Year | What the Court Held |
|---|---|---|
| State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan | 1951 | Led to the First Amendment and the Article 15(4) |
| Indra Sawhney v. Union of India | 1992 | The Mandal case: upheld the 27 per cent OBC reservation, the 50 per cent ceiling, the creamy layer exclusion, and no reservation in promotions |
| M. Nagaraj v. Union of India | 2006 | Conditions for the reservation in promotion: backwardness, inadequate representation and efficiency |
| Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India | 2022 | The 103rd Amendment on the EWS reservation was upheld |
| Shah Bano case (Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum) | 1985 | Maintenance for a divorced Muslim woman under the CrPC, later followed by the 1986 Act |
Environment and Public Interest Litigation
| Case | Year | What the Court Held |
|---|---|---|
| Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP (Dehradun quarrying) | 1985 | The first major environmental case; the closure of the limestone quarries |
| M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak) | 1986 | The principle of absolute liability for the hazardous industries; the Ganga pollution and the Taj Mahal cases followed |
| Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India | 1996 | The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the law |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India | 1996 | The wide definition of 'forest' and the continuing mandamus for the forest protection |
| Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India | 1996 | The polluter pays principle applied in the case of the chemical industries |
| Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India | 2000 | The case on the dam, the rehabilitation of the displaced people |
Principles to Remember
- Basic structure: The Constitution's core cannot be altered by an amendment.
- Doctrine of eclipse and severability: A law violating the Fundamental Rights is not dead, but inoperative; part of the law can be struck down while the rest survives.
- Locus standi: The PIL relaxed the rule that only the affected person can approach the court.
- Judicial review: The power to test the validity of the laws and the executive actions; it is a basic feature.
- Judicial activism and overreach: Activism protects the rights when the other organs fail, but overreach can disturb the separation of powers.
The Mains Angle
For the Mains, use the judgments as evidence in your answers. In an answer on rights, cite Maneka Gandhi and Puttaswamy; on federalism, S.R. Bommai and the Delhi case; on social justice, Indra Sawhney and Vishaka; on the environment, M.C. Mehta and Vellore. For a critical view, discuss the balance between the judicial activism and the separation of powers, the delays and the pendency of cases, and the importance of the constitutional morality. Always name the case with one line of what it decided.
Previous-Year Style Practice
- In which case was the right to privacy declared a Fundamental Right? Answer: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
- Which case introduced the 'rarest of rare' doctrine? Answer: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980).
- Which case set the 50 per cent ceiling on the reservation? Answer: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).
- Which case laid down the guidelines against the sexual harassment at the workplace? Answer: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997).
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Which case gave the basic structure doctrine?
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
Which case recognised the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right?
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
Which case decided the Mandal Commission issue?
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), which upheld the 27 per cent OBC reservation and set the 50 per cent ceiling.
Which case dealt with the sexual harassment at the workplace?
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997).
Which case struck down Section 66A of the IT Act?
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015).
Which case recognised the transgender people as the third gender?
NALSA v. Union of India (2014).
Which case laid down the polluter pays principle?
Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum (1996) and M.C. Mehta cases.
Which case concerned the President's Rule?
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994).
Which case decriminalised the consensual same-sex acts?
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018).
Which case introduced the 'rarest of rare' doctrine for the death penalty?
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980).
Which case is known as the Habeas Corpus case of the Emergency?
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976).
How should I prepare the cases for the Prelims?
Learn them theme-wise with the year and one line of the holding.
Previous chapter
Emergency Provisions in India Notes for UPSC: National Emergency (Article 352), President's Rule (Article 356), Financial Emergency (Article 360), Bommai Case and the Emergency of 1975
Next chapter
Election Commission, Electoral Reforms and Representation of the People Act Notes for UPSC: Article 324, MCC, EVM, VVPAT, NOTA, Disqualification, Anti-Defection and Reform Committees
Komal Gupta
UPSC Exam Expert & Content Editor
Komal is a senior UPSC exam strategist with 8+ years of experience helping aspirants crack CSE, CDS and NDA exams. She writes in-depth notification breakdowns, exam pattern guides and preparation strategies.