10 Landmark Judgments Every Indian Should Know About
July 11, 2023 हिंदी में पढ़ेंTable of Contents
- 1. National Legal Services Authority V. Union of India
- 2. Shayara Bano V. Union of India (Triple Talaq Case)
- 3. Hussainara Khatoon V. The State of Bihar
- 4. Indian Council for Environment Legal Action V. Union of India
- 5. Citizens for the Democracy V. State of Assam
- 6. Shreya Singhal V. Union of India
- 7. Independent Thought V. Union of India (Marital Rape of Minor Wife)
- 8. M. Siddiq V. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. (Ayodhya Case)
- 9. Puttuswamy V. Union of India (Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right)
- 10. Kesavananda Bharati V. Union of India
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:
Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue
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 ‘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 ‘any person,’ and “transgender persons who are neither male/female fall within the expression ‘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.”
2. Shayara Bano V. Union of India (Triple Talaq Case)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court heard the petition of ‘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 ‘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.
Consult: Top Civil Lawyers in India
4. Indian Council for Environment Legal Action V. Union of India
In this case, the court applied the principle of ‘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”.
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”.
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.
Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue
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.
These guides are not legal advice, nor a substitute for a lawyer
These articles are provided freely as general guides. While we do our best
to make sure these guides are helpful, we do not give any guarantee that
they are accurate or appropriate to your situation, or take any
responsibility for any loss their use might cause you. Do not rely on
information provided here without seeking experienced legal advice first. If
in doubt, please always consult a lawyer.
The internet is not a lawyer and neither are you.
Talk
to a real lawyer about your legal issue.
Comments by Users
No Comments! Be the first one to comment.
Related Articles
- Police Clearance Certificate for passport if criminal case pending
- How to file a case through lok adalat?
- How can I convert the panchayat approved land to a DTCP or CMDA
- Case was dismissed due to non appearance can I restore the case
- someone sending the legal notice i have not accepted what will happpen
- How to file a complaint in National Green Tribunal (NGT)? | Civil Law Guide
- Separation of powers in administrative law in India
- OBC Non Creamy Layer Income Limit 2019 Criteria
- punishment for false affidavit
- I got show cause notice from passport office please advise what to do
- What is the validity of an agreement on Rs 10 stamp paper
- What is the basic difference between Section / Rule / Article /Act
- What is the procedure and grounds for filing defamation case
- Have received court challan what to do.
- Police verification for govt job
- How to File Writ Petition?
Civil Law Articles
User Reviews
4.5 - 19 reviews
Helped a lot in understanding the law.
nice article. Thanks for the information
nice article. Good legal advice
very helpful
great legal advice
informative with the law.
good advice. Who can I contact for my legal issue?
loved the way concept is explained. Nicely written for any layman to understand.
very nice article
good legal subject
Answered all my legal queries.
nicely written. Great work
very informative. Can you tell more about this
thanks for the information
nice work. Learned a lot. Thanks
Written in a very simple language.
nice article
it’s a very nice legal article
very good article. Can you tell me more about the law?
VIEW ALL