10 Landmark Judgments Every Indian Should Know About

India is a growing nation, and every growing nation goes through a variety of legal issues. Sometimes the prevalent laws are enough to deal with such issues, other times the judiciary functions in a gray area feeling a need for a law to address the issue at hand. However, almost every time, the judiciary has set new benchmarks while performing its judicial duties, surprising the nation with the extraordinary use of its justice-delivering abilities. Here are some of the landmark judgments delivered by the Indian judiciary that has paved the way for a better India, as we know it today:

1. National Legal Services Authority V. Union of India

In this landmark judgment, the Apex Court allowed a petition on behalf of the country's transgender community and held that the right to express one's identity in a non-binary gender was an essential part of freedom of expression. It directed the government to give legal recognition to the third gender, such that individuals would be able to identify themselves as male, female or third gender. While referring to Article 14 of the Constitution of India which states that “ the state shall not deny to & lsquo any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India,” it held that the article affords protection to & lsquo any person,' and “ transgender persons who are neither male/female fall within the expression & lsquo person' and, hence, entitled to legal protection of laws in all spheres of State activity, including employment, healthcare, education as well as equal civil and citizenship right.”

Consult top-rated Civil lawyers in your city

641+ Lawyers are online

FIND MY LAWYER NOW

2. Shayara Bano V. Union of India (Triple Talaq Case)

The Hon'ble Supreme Court heard the petition of & lsquo Triple Talaq' or instant talaq which is an Islamic practice that allows men to divorce their wives immediately by uttering the word “ talaq” three times. A Constitution bench comprising 5 judges from different religions on August 22, 2017, declared Triple Talaq or Talaq-e-Biddat as unconstitutional by a 3:2 majority. Taking into consideration the views of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment of Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India, the Hon'ble Law Minister Shri Ravi Shankar Prasad took an initiative to present the Triple Talaq Bill before the Lower House, Lok Sabha, which was passed by a majority by the Lower house on December 28, 2017. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill notes that the judgment has not worked as a deterrent in bringing down the number of instances of triple talaq. It explains, "It is, therefore, felt that there is a need for State action to give effect to the order of the Supreme Court and to redress the grievances of victims of illegal divorce. In order to prevent the continued harassment being meted out to the hapless married Muslim women due to talaq-e-biddat, urgent suitable legislation is necessary to give some relief to them.

3. Hussainara Khatoon V. The State of Bihar

Almost exactly 40 years ago, in March 1979, Kapila Hingorani made history by filing the PIL and securing the release of nearly 40,000 undertrials languishing in the jails of Bihar's Patna and Muzzafarpur, in the & lsquo Hussainara Khatoon' case. The Hussainara Khatoon case established a new paradigm in the Indian justice system, which until 1979 was accessible to only those personally affected by the law or facing penal action. The court allowed Hingorani to pursue a case in which she had no personal locus standi (the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court) making Public Interest Litigations (PILs) a permanent fixture in Indian jurisprudence. Ever since PILs have become the champion of the underprivileged and those wronged by the system.

4. Indian Council for Environment Legal Action V. Union of India

In this case, the court applied the principle of & lsquo Polluter Pays' for the first time. This principle demands that “ the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause pollution or produce the goods which cause pollution.” The Supreme Court also relied on the judgment given in the case of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, which is responsible for the inclusion and evolution of the rule of absolute liability in India. This rule states that “ if any person is engaged in any inherently dangerous or hazardous activity, and if any harm is caused to any person during the carrying out of such hazardous activity, then the person who is carrying out such activity will be absolutely liable and cannot plead defense” .

Consult top-rated Civil lawyers in your city

641+ Lawyers are online

FIND MY LAWYER NOW

5. Citizens for the Democracy V. State of Assam

In this case, Mr. Kuldip Nayar who was an eminent journalist in his capacity as president of "Citizen for Democracy" through a letter brought out the notice of the Supreme Court that the seven TADA detainees lodged in the hospital in the State of Assam were handcuffed and tied with a long rope to check their movement. Security guards were also posted outside the hospital. The Court treated the letter as a letter petition in its epistolary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and held that handcuffing and in addition tying with ropes the patient prisoners who are lodged in the hospital is inhuman and in violation of human rights guaranteed to an individual under international law and the law of the land. Where a person is arrested by the Police without a warrant and the police officer is satisfied on the basis of the above guidelines that it is necessary to handcuff such a person he may do so till the time he is taken to the police station and thereafter his production before the Magistrate. Further use of fetters thereafter can only be under the orders of the Magistrate.

6. Shreya Singhal V. Union of India

The Supreme Court in this landmark judgment struck down section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which provided provisions for the arrest of those who posted allegedly offensive content on the internet upholding freedom of expression. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending “ offensive” messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or tablet and a conviction of it could fetch a maximum of three years of jail and a fine.

7. Independent Thought V. Union of India (Marital Rape of Minor Wife)

The Supreme Court in this landmark judgment held that sexual intercourse with a minor wife is rape. The court said that the exception to a husband whose wife is between 15 and 18 years of age cannot survive and needs to be done away with. The Supreme Court, while stating the aforesaid, struck down Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which exempted marital rape of girls between the age of 15 and 18 from the purview of rape.
 

8. M. Siddiq V. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. (Ayodhya Case)

The Supreme Court in its unanimous verdict cleared the way for the construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site at Ayodhya and directed the Centre to allot a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque. The Supreme Court decided to hand the disputed site over to a trust, managed by the Central government, which will oversee all activities including the construction of a Ram temple. While reiterating that the demolition of the Babri Masjid was illegal, the court ordered that the government has to acquire an alternative plot of land on which a mosque can be built. The court said that the Allahabad High Court, which had divided the land between the Hindu and Muslim parties to the suit, “ defied logic” .

Consult top-rated Civil lawyers in your city

641+ Lawyers are online

FIND MY LAWYER NOW

9. Puttuswamy V. Union of India (Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right)

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that Indians enjoy a fundamental right to privacy that is intrinsic to life and liberty and thus comes under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. In its 547-page judgment that declares privacy to be a fundamental right, the Supreme Court overruled verdicts given in the M.P. Sharma case in 1958 and the Kharak Singh case in 1961, both of which said that the right to privacy is not protected under the Indian constitution.

10. Kesavananda Bharati V. Union of India

It is one of the most memorable Supreme Court case judgments filed in the year 1970. Keshvananda Bharati was the chief of Edneer Mutt, a religious sect in the Kasaragod district of Kerala. He had possessed certain pieces of land owned under his name. During that period, the state government of Kerala introduced the Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969. When the petition was still under consideration by the court, a lot of amendments were already done by the Government during the case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab. The 13-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment, outlining the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution and providing stability to it. The SC held that although no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the Parliament's amending power, the “ basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.” Though the petitioner lost his case partially, it worked out as a savior of Indian democracy and saved the Constitution from losing its spirit.

Advocate Chikirsha Mohanty

Greater Kailash - 1, Delhi
5 years

GET LEGAL HELP

GET LEGAL HELP