Landmark Judgments
249 Supreme Court judgments from 1950 to 2025, chosen from the cases our judiciary, CLAT and AIBE questions cite most. Each page gives the facts, the questions before the Court, what it held and passages in the Court's own words, with a link to the official judgment and to the sections it interprets.
Search by party name, year, topic or subject.
Results for “Article 32”
20 matches. Clear search
- Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005)By majority, the Board of Control for Cricket in India is not 'State' under Article 12, so a petition under Article 32 does not lie against it, though Article 226 may lie for its public duties.
- S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1986)The Court upheld the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction in service matters under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provided the Tribunal is an equally effective substitute for the High Court, and required changes to its composition and appointments.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986)An enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely liable for harm caused by an accident in it, without the Rylands v. Fletcher exceptions, and the Court may award compensation under Article 32 in appropriate cases.
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1983)A letter alleging bonded labour in Faridabad stone quarries was maintainable under Article 32; the Court rejected objections to its commissioners' reports, presumed forced labourers to be bonded, and issued directions to the Union and Haryana.
- Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1977)The Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Election Commission's cancellation of a poll and order for a fresh poll was barred by Article 329(b), leaving every relief to be sought in an election petition.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)By majority, clause (4) of Article 329A, which declared the Prime Minister's disputed election valid, was held unconstitutional; all five judges upheld the retrospective election law amendments, so her appeal succeeded and the High Court's judgment was set aside.
- Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P. (1962)Rule 12 of Order XXXV of the Supreme Court Rules, so far as it allowed the Court to demand security for the respondent's costs in Article 32 petitions, was invalid as it impaired the right to move the Court.
- N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (1952)Article 329(b) bars a High Court from entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 against the rejection of a nomination paper during an election; the only remedy is an election petition after the election.
- Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)The Court held Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 wholly void under Article 19(2) and quashed the Madras Government's ban on the entry and circulation of the weekly Cross Roads.
- Manish Kumar v. Union of India (2021)The Court upheld the 2020 IBC amendments: the threshold of 100 or ten per cent for allottees and certain financial creditors under Section 7, the deemed withdrawal of pending applications, Explanation II to Section 11, and Section 32A.
- Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)Undue, unexplained and inordinate executive delay in deciding mercy petitions, and insanity, are supervening circumstances on which death sentences may be commuted under Article 32, in all cases including TADA; fifteen death sentences were commuted and guidelines issued.
- Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997)The Court struck down Directive No. 4.7(3) of the Single Directive, which required prior sanction before the CBI inquired into senior officers, and issued binding directions under Articles 32 and 142 to insulate investigating agencies.
- Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)Compensation under Articles 32 and 226 for violation of fundamental rights is a public law remedy based on strict liability, to which sovereign immunity does not apply; Orissa was ordered to pay Rs. 1,50,000 for a custodial death.
- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to pollution free water and air, but a petition under Article 32 filed to pursue a personal grudge in the garb of public interest litigation was dismissed with costs.
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)By 4:1, the Court upheld the death penalty for murder under Section 302 IPC and the sentencing procedure in Section 354(3) CrPC, holding that death may be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.
- Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979)Free legal services for an accused unable to afford a lawyer are implicit in Article 21, and the State cannot deny speedy trial by pleading lack of resources; under-trials held beyond the maximum sentence were ordered released.
- Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962)The Court struck down the provision for night-time domiciliary visits in the U.P. Police Regulations as violating personal liberty under Article 21, but held that the other forms of police surveillance infringed no fundamental right.
- Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1957)The Court held that no absolute rule of law or prudence requires a dying declaration to be corroborated before it can found a conviction, and upheld the appellant's murder conviction and death sentence on three consistent dying declarations.
- Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay (1954)The last sentence of Section 497 IPC, which exempts the wife from punishment as an abettor of adultery, is a special provision for women saved by Article 15(3) and does not violate Articles 14 and 15.
- Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953)Article 20(2) bars a second prosecution only after a prosecution and punishment before a court or judicial tribunal; customs confiscation is not one, so the later prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could proceed.
How these pages are written
- Every digest is written from the judgment itself, taken from the Supreme Court's own website (sci.gov.in), and links to that file.
- Quoted passages are copied from the official text and were checked against it word for word; each gives the page of the PDF.
- Where the bench split, the holdings given are the majority's. Where a later judgment in this library overrules or explains a case, that case's page says so, quoting the later Court's words.
- A digest is a study aid. Read the judgment before citing it.
Test yourself: 159 practice questions on landmark judgments.
Constitutional Law
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras1950 · 6 judgesThe majority upheld the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, except Section 14, holding that 'law' in Article 21 means State-made law and that preventive detention is not tested under Article 19; the habeas corpus petition was dismissed.
- Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras1950 · 6 judgesThe Court held Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 wholly void under Article 19(2) and quashed the Madras Government's ban on the entry and circulation of the weekly Cross Roads.
- Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh1950 · 5 judgesThe Court held void the Central Provinces and Berar law allowing a total ban on bidi manufacture during the agricultural season, because the prohibition was not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) on the right in Article 19(1)(g).
- State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan1951 · 7 judgesThe Communal G.O. allotting seats in State medical and engineering colleges by religion and caste violated Article 29(2) and was void under Article 13; directive principles cannot override fundamental rights.
- State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara1951 · 5 judgesThe Court upheld the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 as within provincial competence over intoxicating liquors, striking down only its bans on medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol, on 'commending' intoxicants and certain other severable provisions.
- Harla v. State of Rajasthan1951 · 2 judgesA law passed by a mere resolution of the Jaipur Council of Ministers, never promulgated or published, was not operative law, so a conviction under the Jaipur Opium Act was set aside.
- State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar1952 · 7 judgesBy a majority of 6:1, the Court held Section 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 void under Article 14, at least so far as it let the State Government send particular cases to a Special Court.
- N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency1952 · 6 judgesArticle 329(b) bars a High Court from entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 against the rejection of a nomination paper during an election; the only remedy is an election petition after the election.
- Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay1953 · 5 judgesArticle 20(2) bars a second prosecution only after a prosecution and punishment before a court or judicial tribunal; customs confiscation is not one, so the later prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could proceed.
- Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay1954 · 5 judgesThe last sentence of Section 497 IPC, which exempts the wife from punishment as an abettor of adultery, is a special provision for women saved by Article 15(3) and does not violate Articles 14 and 15.
- M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra1954 · 8 judgesSearch and seizure of documents under a warrant issued under Sections 94 and 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is not compelled testimony under Article 20(3) and does not violate Article 19(1)(f); the petitions were dismissed.
- Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt1954 · 7 judgesThe Court held that Articles 25 and 26 protect religious practices as well as beliefs, struck down several provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, and held the Section 76 contribution a tax, not a fee.
- Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab1955The State executive may carry on a trade or business without specific legislation, since its power under Article 162 extends to all matters within State legislative competence; the text book scheme violated no fundamental right of the publishers.
- Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar1955 · 7 judgesUntil Parliament provides otherwise, no State may tax sales in the course of inter-State trade under Article 286(2), even if goods are delivered for consumption in that State; the Court departed from its United Motors decision.
- Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh1955 · 5 judgesA pre-Constitution law that became void under Article 13(1) for inconsistency with Article 19(1)(g) was only eclipsed, not dead, and revived against citizens once the First Amendment amended Article 19(6) to remove the inconsistency.
- Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax1958 · 5 judgesThe Court set aside a settlement made under section 8A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 as hit by Article 14, holding that an assessee cannot waive a breach of the fundamental right under Article 14.
- Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala1960 · 5 judgesA flat per-acre land tax levied irrespective of the land's productivity, with an unguided exemption power, violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and was confiscatory; Article 265 does not shield a taxing law from Part III.
- State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad1961 · 11 judgesTaking specimen handwriting, signatures or finger, palm or foot impressions from an accused does not violate Article 20(3), and Section 27 of the Evidence Act is valid unless the information was obtained by compulsion.
- Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India1961 · 5 judgesSection 3(1) of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 and the 1960 Order made under it, which tied a newspaper's pages to its price, were struck down as directly infringing Article 19(1)(a).
- Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar1962 · 5 judgesSections 124A and 505 IPC were upheld as reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order under Article 19(2), with Section 124A read down to cover only words that incite violence or tend or intend to create public disorder.
- Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai v. State of Bombay1962 · 6 judgesGovernment orders reserving 80% of seats in a Christian minority's teacher training college for government-nominated teachers, enforced by threats to withhold grant and recognition, infringed the absolute right of minorities under Article 30(1).
- Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P.1962 · 5 judgesRule 12 of Order XXXV of the Supreme Court Rules, so far as it allowed the Court to demand security for the respondent's costs in Article 32 petitions, was invalid as it impaired the right to move the Court.
- Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh1962 · 6 judgesThe Court struck down the provision for night-time domiciliary visits in the U.P. Police Regulations as violating personal liberty under Article 21, but held that the other forms of police surveillance infringed no fundamental right.
- Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar1965 · 5 judgesA detention order under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules made to prevent acts prejudicial to 'law and order', rather than 'public order', was outside the Rule, and the detenu was ordered to be released.
- I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab1967 · 11 judgesBy 6:5, the Court held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to take away or abridge fundamental rights, rejecting Sankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh, but left existing amendments in force and dismissed the petitions.
- Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam1967 · 5 judgesThe right to travel abroad is part of 'personal liberty' under Article 21, so it cannot be taken away except by procedure established by law, and unchannelled executive discretion to refuse or withdraw passports violates Article 14.
- Rev. Father W. Proost v. State of Bihar1968 · 5 judgesThe right of a religious minority under Article 30(1) to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice is not limited by Article 29(1); St. Xavier's College, Ranchi had that protection and was exempt under Section 48-B.
- Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India1970 · 11 judgesThe majority struck down the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969, which nationalised 14 banks, for hostile discrimination, unreasonable restriction on business and failure to provide compensation under Article 31(2) on relevant principles.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala1973 · 13 judgesBy seven judges to six, the Court held that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 does not include power to alter its basic structure; it upheld the 24th and 29th Amendments but struck down part of Article 31C.
- E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu1973 · 5 judgesThe Court dismissed an IAS officer's challenge to his transfer from the post of Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu; the three-judge opinion held that Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness, but arbitrariness and mala fides were not proved.
- Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh1975 · 3 judgesThe Court upheld Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations on surveillance and domiciliary visits, reading them down narrowly, and held that any right to privacy is not absolute; the writ petition was dismissed.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain1975 · 5 judgesBy majority, clause (4) of Article 329A, which declared the Prime Minister's disputed election valid, was held unconstitutional; all five judges upheld the retrospective election law amendments, so her appeal succeeded and the High Court's judgment was set aside.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India1978 · 7 judgesProcedure under Article 21 must be right, just and fair, not arbitrary; Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive; a hearing is implied in Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, which was held valid.
- Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani1978 · 3 judgesThe Court held that Article 20(3) and Section 161(2) CrPC protect an accused during police interrogation, cover exposure to other pending or imminent charges, and bar psychologically compelled answers; the Section 179 IPC prosecution was quashed.
- Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration1978 · 5 judgesReading down Sections 30(2) and 56 of the Prisons Act, 1894, the Court held that a prisoner under sentence of death cannot be kept in solitary confinement and that bar fetters may be imposed only on recorded, individual safety grounds.
- Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar1979 · 2 judgesFree legal services for an accused unable to afford a lawyer are implicit in Article 21, and the State cannot deny speedy trial by pleading lack of resources; under-trials held beyond the maximum sentence were ordered released.
- Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration1980 · 3 judgesRoutine handcuffing of under-trial prisoners violates Articles 14, 19 and 21; handcuffs may be used only where there is no other reasonable way to prevent escape, with recorded reasons and judicial oversight, and the 'better class' distinction is arbitrary.
- Waman Rao v. Union of India1980 · 5 judgesThe Court upheld Articles 31A, 31B and the unamended Article 31C, holding that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule before 24 April 1973 are fully protected, while later additions are valid only if they do not damage the basic structure.
- Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India1980 · 5 judgesThe Court struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, holding that a limited amending power, judicial review and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are parts of the basic structure.
- Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi1980 · 5 judgesA society registered under a Societies Registration Act that is an instrumentality or agency of Government is 'State' under Article 12; allotting one-third of the marks to a brief viva voce made admissions arbitrary under Article 14.
- People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India1982 · 2 judgesIn a public interest petition on Asiad construction workers, the Court upheld the petitioners' standing, held the State bound as principal employer to enforce labour laws, and held that work below minimum wage is forced labour under Article 23.
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India1983 · 3 judgesA letter alleging bonded labour in Faridabad stone quarries was maintainable under Article 32; the Court rejected objections to its commissioners' reports, presumed forced labourers to be bonded, and issued directions to the Union and Haryana.
- Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation1985 · 5 judgesThe right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood, but Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, permitting removal of pavement encroachments without notice, is not unreasonable; evictions were deferred and resettlement assurances enforced.
- Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel1985 · 5 judgesThe majority held that when a clause of the second proviso to Article 311(2) applies, no inquiry or opportunity of hearing need be given, that Article 14 cannot reintroduce it, and overruled Challappan on hearing before penalty.
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala1986 · 2 judgesExpelling school children who, out of a genuine religious belief, stood respectfully but did not sing the National Anthem violated their rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1); the Court ordered their re-admission.
- S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India1986 · 5 judgesThe Court upheld the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction in service matters under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provided the Tribunal is an equally effective substitute for the High Court, and required changes to its composition and appointments.
- D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar1986 · 5 judgesThe Governor cannot keep an Ordinance alive by repromulgating it successively without placing it before the Legislature; such repromulgation is a colourable exercise of power and a fraud on Article 213, and the surviving Ordinance was struck down.
- Union of India v. Raghubir Singh1989 · 5 judgesA Division Bench's ruling binds later Benches of equal or smaller strength; enhanced 30 per cent solatium under Section 30(2) of the 1984 amendment applies only to awards made between 30 April 1982 and 24 September 1984, and appeals therefrom.
- India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu1989 · 7 judgesA cess levied under Section 115 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 on royalty payable under mining leases was held beyond the State Legislature's competence, with the declaration operating prospectively and no refund of cess already collected.
- Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu1992 · 5 judgesThe majority upheld the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) except Paragraph 7, which was invalid for want of ratification and severable; Speakers' disqualification decisions are subject to limited judicial review.
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India1992 · 9 judgesThe Court upheld 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes under Article 16(4) subject to exclusion of the creamy layer, set a normal 50% limit, barred reservation in promotions prospectively, and struck down the 10% economic quota.
- Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa1993 · 3 judgesCompensation under Articles 32 and 226 for violation of fundamental rights is a public law remedy based on strict liability, to which sovereign immunity does not apply; Orissa was ordered to pay Rs. 1,50,000 for a custodial death.
- Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India1994 · 2 judgesThe Court upheld the disqualification of two Goa MLAs who had voluntarily given up membership of their party, but quashed Ravi Naik's disqualification because the Speaker had ignored a High Court stay when counting his split group.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India1994 · 9 judgesA Proclamation under Article 356 is open to judicial review on the material behind it; secularism is a basic feature; the Karnataka and Meghalaya Proclamations were unconstitutional, while those for Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh stood.
- Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka1994 · 5 judgesA citizen has no fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to trade or do business in potable liquor; the State may prohibit it completely, create a monopoly in itself, and impose restrictions even by subordinate legislation.
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal1996 · 2 judgesTreating letters on custodial deaths as writ petitions, the Court laid down eleven requirements to be followed in every arrest or detention and held that the State is liable to pay public law compensation for custodial violation of Article 21.
- People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India1996 · 2 judgesTelephone tapping infringes privacy under Article 21 unless permitted by procedure established by law, and Article 19(1)(a) unless within Article 19(2); pending rules under Section 7(2)(b) of the Telegraph Act, the Court laid down safeguards for Section 5(2) interception.
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan1997 · 3 judgesIn the absence of legislation, the Court laid down binding guidelines and norms to prevent sexual harassment of women at all work places, reading international conventions such as CEDAW into Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21.
- Vineet Narain v. Union of India1997 · 3 judgesThe Court struck down Directive No. 4.7(3) of the Single Directive, which required prior sanction before the CBI inquired into senior officers, and issued binding directions under Articles 32 and 142 to insulate investigating agencies.
- P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE)1998 · 5 judgesBy majority, Members of Parliament who took bribes and voted in Parliament are immune from prosecution under Article 105(2), but bribe givers and a non-voting Member are not; Members are public servants under the 1988 Act.
- Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India1998 · 5 judgesWhile punishing an advocate for contempt under Articles 129 and 142, the Supreme Court cannot also suspend his licence to practise, a power vested in the Bar Councils; In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra was overruled to that extent.
- Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das2000 · 2 judgesThe Union of India was held liable under public law to compensate a Bangladeshi national gang-raped by men including railway employees in a railway building, because Article 21 protects non-citizens and running railways is a commercial, not sovereign, activity.
- Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology2002 · 7 judgesThe majority held that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research is 'the State' under Article 12, being financially, functionally and administratively dominated by the Government, and overruled Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India.
- Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare2002 · 2 judgesThe Election Commission, acting quasi-judicially when registering a political party under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, has no power to de-register it for violating the Constitution, save in three narrow exceptions.
- T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka2002 · 11 judgesAn eleven judge Bench held that all citizens may establish and administer educational institutions under Articles 19(1)(g) and 26, minorities also under Article 30, with minority status judged State-wise; the Unni Krishnan scheme was held unconstitutional.
- Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka2003 · 5 judgesClarifying T.M.A. Pai, the majority held that unaided professional colleges may fix their own fees subject to no profiteering or capitation fee, and directed State committees under Article 142 to approve fees and supervise admission tests.
- State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd.2004 · 5 judgesThe majority upheld State cesses on coal-bearing land, tea estates, brick earth and minor minerals as taxes on land or mineral rights (Entries 49 and 50, List II), held that royalty is not a tax, and overruled Mahanadi Coalfields.
- E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh2004 · 5 judgesThe Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000, which split the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes into four groups with separate quotas, was beyond State legislative competence and violated Article 14.
- Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India2005 · 5 judgesBy majority, the Board of Control for Cricket in India is not 'State' under Article 12, so a petition under Article 32 does not lie against it, though Article 226 may lie for its public duties.
- P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra2005 · 7 judgesThe State cannot appropriate seats or enforce its reservation policy in unaided minority or non-minority institutions; such institutions may set their own fair, transparent, merit-based admissions and non-profiteering fees, subject to regulation including the Islamic Academy committees.
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu2007 · 9 judgesLaws placed in the Ninth Schedule by amendments made on or after 24 April 1973 get no blanket immunity and can be tested against the basic structure, as reflected in Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19.
- State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights2010 · 5 judgesA High Court under Article 226 may direct the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence in a State without that State's consent; this neither violates the federal structure nor separation of powers, but the power must be used sparingly.
- Selvi v. State of Karnataka2010 · 3 judgesCompulsory narcoanalysis, polygraph and BEAP tests violate Article 20(3) and Article 21; no one may be forcibly subjected to them, and even voluntary test results are inadmissible, though facts later discovered may be proved under Section 27.
- Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India2011 · 2 judgesThe Court held active euthanasia unlawful but allowed passive euthanasia, laid down a High Court approval procedure for withdrawing life support from incompetent patients until Parliament legislates, and dismissed the petition to stop the petitioner's feeding.
- Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh2011 · 2 judgesThe Court held that appointing barely literate tribal youth as Special Police Officers for counter-insurgency against Maoists violates Articles 14 and 21, and ordered the State and Union to stop using and funding them.
- K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka2011 · 5 judgesThe Court upheld the Roerich Estate Acquisition Act and the withdrawal of the linaloe exemption, and held that Article 300A requires a public purpose for deprivation of property, with any nil or illusory compensation to be justified by the State.
- Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India2012 · 3 judgesThe majority upheld the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, including the 25% admission requirement in Section 12(1)(c), for unaided non-minority schools, but held that the Act does not apply to unaided minority schools.
- Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation2013 · 2 judgesThe Court set aside the Delhi High Court's declaration that Section 377 IPC was unconstitutional as applied to consensual sexual acts of adults in private, holding the section free of constitutional infirmity and leaving change to Parliament.
- Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India2014 · 3 judgesUndue, unexplained and inordinate executive delay in deciding mercy petitions, and insanity, are supervening circumstances on which death sentences may be commuted under Article 32, in all cases including TADA; fifteen death sentences were commuted and guidelines issued.
- National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India2014 · 2 judgesHijras and eunuchs must be treated as a 'third gender'; transgender persons have the right to decide their self-identified gender under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(a) and 21, and governments must legally recognise it and give them affirmative action.
- Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India2014 · 5 judgesArticle 15(5) and Article 21A do not violate the basic structure and are valid; the Right to Education Act, 2009 is valid against private unaided schools but cannot apply to minority schools, aided or unaided.
- Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India2014 · 5 judgesArticle 21 requires that review petitions in death sentence cases be given a limited oral hearing in open court, not decided by circulation; appeals in such cases are to be heard by benches of three Judges.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India2015 · 2 judgesThe Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act as violating Article 19(1)(a), upheld Section 69A and the blocking rules, and read down Section 79(3)(b).
- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India2015 · 5 judgesBy a 4:1 majority, the Court declared the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 unconstitutional and void, and held that the earlier collegium system of appointing Judges stood revived.
- Union of India v. V. Sriharan2015 · 5 judgesLife imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of the convict's life; by majority, constitutional courts may substitute death with a term beyond 14 years or whole life without remission; Section 435(1) consultation means concurrence.
- Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly2016 · 5 judgesThe Governor's order preponing the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly session and his message fixing its agenda, issued without the Council of Ministers' aid and advice, were unconstitutional; consequent Assembly decisions were set aside and the status quo ante restored.
- Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar2017 · 7 judgesA seven-judge bench held that the chain of Bihar Ordinances on Sanskrit schools, re-promulgated without being laid before the legislature, was a fraud on the Constitution, and that the enduring rights theory of Bhupendra Kumar Bose is not correct law.
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India2017 · 9 judgesThe right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and of the Part III freedoms; M P Sharma and Kharak Singh are overruled on that point.
- Common Cause v. Union of India2018 · 5 judgesThe Constitution Bench held that the right to live with dignity under Article 21 includes a dignified process of dying, recognised passive euthanasia and advance medical directives, and laid down guidelines that apply until Parliament legislates.
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India2018 · 5 judgesSection 377 IPC, insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual acts between adults in private, violates Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 and is read down; Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation is overruled.
- Lok Prahari v. Election Commission of India2018 · 3 judgesOnce an appellate court stays a conviction under Section 389 CrPC, the disqualification under Section 8(1), (2) and (3) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 does not operate; the writ petition was dismissed.
- Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh2020 · 2 judgesThe State cannot take a citizen's land without following law, cannot claim title by adverse possession against its own citizen, and was directed to pay compensation as a deemed acquisition despite a delay of decades.
- Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly2020 · 3 judgesA Speaker deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule must do so within a reasonable time, ordinarily three months; courts may review inaction, and the Manipur Speaker was directed to decide within four weeks.
- Vikash Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission2021 · 3 judgesA person with disability under Section 2(s) of the RPwD Act, 2016 who needs a scribe cannot be denied one for not having a 40% benchmark disability; the appellant was held entitled to a scribe in the Civil Services Examination.
- Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.2022 · 3 judgesGST Council recommendations are persuasive and do not bind Parliament and State legislatures; IGST on ocean freight levied on importers under CIF contracts violates the composite supply principle in Section 8 of the CGST Act; appeals dismissed.
- Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India2022 · 5 judgesBy a 3:2 majority, the Constitution Bench upheld the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which enables up to ten per cent. reservation for economically weaker sections other than SCs, STs and non-creamy layer OBCs.
- Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra2023 · 5 judgesThe Constitution Bench held that the political party, not the legislature party, appoints the Whip, that the Governor wrongly called a floor test without objective material, and referred the correctness of Nabam Rebia to seven judges.
- Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India2023 · 5 judgesThe Court unanimously held there is no fundamental right to marry and declined to read the Special Marriage Act to include same-sex couples; by majority it declined to recognise civil unions or joint adoption by unmarried couples.
- Sita Soren v. Union of India2024 · 7 judgesA member of Parliament or a State Legislature cannot claim immunity under Articles 105(2) or 194(2) from prosecution for bribery in connection with a vote or speech; the majority view in PV Narasimha Rao was overruled.
- Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah2024 · 2 judgesSection 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 confers no power of compulsory acquisition; under Article 300A a valid acquisition needs fair procedure, and compensation alone is not enough.
- Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India2024 · 9 judgesRoyalty under Section 9 of the MMDR Act is not a tax; States can tax mineral rights under Entry 50 and mineral-bearing land under Entry 49 of List II, and the MMDR Act imposes no limitation on that power.
- State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh2024 · 7 judgesThe State may sub-classify the Scheduled Castes for reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) on a rational principle supported by data on inadequate representation; E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh was overruled.
- State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu2025 · 2 judgesThe Governor's reservation for the President of ten Bills re-passed by the Tamil Nadu legislature was illegal; the Court held that Article 200 allows no pocket or absolute veto, prescribed time-limits, and declared the Bills deemed assented under Article 142.
Criminal Law
- Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad1954 · 3 judgesHolding that common intention under Section 34 IPC requires prior concert and a pre-arranged plan, the Court reduced Pandurang's murder conviction to one under Section 326 IPC and commuted the death sentences of Tukia and Bhilia.
- Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab1958 · 3 judgesThe Court explained what the prosecution must prove under Section 300, clause thirdly, IPC, and upheld the appellant's murder conviction for a single spear thrust into the abdomen that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
- K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra1961 · 3 judgesThe Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder and life sentence: the jury verdict was vitiated by grave misdirections, and the killing, done after time to cool, did not fall within the grave and sudden provocation exception.
- Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab1962 · 5 judgesWhere the charge and evidence named only five members of an unlawful assembly and two were acquitted, Section 149 IPC could not apply to the rest, but the appellants' murder conviction was altered to Section 302 read with Section 34.
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya1976 · 2 judgesExplaining the distinction between culpable homicide under Section 299 and murder under Section 300 IPC, the Court restored the murder conviction of an accused who, with another, beat the victim's arms and legs with heavy sticks, causing death.
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab1980 · 5 judgesBy 4:1, the Court upheld the death penalty for murder under Section 302 IPC and the sentencing procedure in Section 354(3) CrPC, holding that death may be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.
- Mithu v. State of Punjab1983 · 5 judgesThe Constitution Bench struck down Section 303 IPC, which made death the mandatory sentence for murder by a person under a life sentence, as violating Articles 14 and 21; all murders now fall under Section 302.
- Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab1983 · 3 judgesExplaining how the Bachan Singh 'rarest of rare cases' rule is to be applied, the Court set out categories of murder that may call for death and confirmed three death sentences for a series of killings.
- Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)1988 · 3 judgesThe Court upheld the convictions and death sentences of Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh for the conspiracy to assassinate Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, acquitted Balbir Singh, and held that the trial in Tihar Jail was a valid open trial.
- Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India1990 · 2 judgesOfficers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence invested with police station officer powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are not 'police officers' under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so confessions made to them are not barred.
- Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab1996 · 5 judgesA Constitution Bench held that Article 21 does not include a 'right to die', overruled P. Rathinam, and upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code.
- State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh1999 · 5 judgesAn officer searching a person on prior information must tell him of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate; contraband recovered in breach cannot alone prove unlawful possession.
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar2005 · 3 judgesSection 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to a search of a person's body with its clothing and footwear, not to a bag, briefcase or other container the person is carrying.
- Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab2005 · 3 judgesA doctor is criminally liable under Section 304A IPC only for gross negligence judged by the Bolam test; the Court affirmed Dr. Suresh Gupta, laid down guidelines for prosecuting doctors, and quashed the appellant's prosecution.
- Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India2008 · 2 judgesAn officer acting under Section 67 read with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not a police officer, so a voluntary statement made to him can be used as a confession against its maker and alone sustain a conviction.
- Noor Aga v. State of Punjab2008 · 2 judgesSections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, which place a reverse burden on the accused, are not unconstitutional, but the prosecution must first prove the foundational facts strictly; as recovery was not proved, the conviction was set aside.
- Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar2009 · 2 judgesExecuting a sale deed for land the executant claims as his own, though it is not his, is not making a false document under Section 464 IPC, so no forgery under Sections 467 and 471 arises.
- Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab2010 · 2 judgesThe appellant, who fired at his uncle after the uncle struck his father on the head with a gandasa and advanced on him, acted in private defence; the High Court wrongly reversed his acquittal.
- Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat2010 · 5 judgesSection 50(1) of the NDPS Act obliges the empowered officer to inform a suspect of the right to be searched before a gazetted officer or Magistrate; this is mandatory, and 'substantial compliance' is not enough.
- Independent Thought v. Union of India2017 · 2 judgesException 2 to Section 375 IPC was read down so that sexual intercourse by a man with his wife who is below 18 years of age is rape; the question of marital rape of adult women was left open.
- Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India2017 · 2 judgesThe Court declared Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposed two further conditions for bail, unconstitutional as violating Articles 14 and 21, and remanded the bail matters.
- Joseph Shine v. Union of India2018 · 5 judgesThe Constitution Bench unanimously struck down Section 497 IPC, which made adultery an offence, as violating Articles 14, 15 and 21, held Section 198 CrPC invalid in relation to adultery, and overruled Sowmithri Vishnu and V. Revathi.
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu2020 · 3 judgesBy majority, officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers for Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and a statement recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as a confession at trial.
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India2022 · 3 judgesThe Court upheld the challenged PMLA provisions, including Sections 5, 19, 24, 45 and 50, read down the proviso to Section 44(1)(a), gave Section 3 a wide reading, and held that ED officers are not police officers.
- Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh2023 · 2 judgesSection 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to a search of the person, not of a bag he carries; as charas was found in the appellant's shoulder bag, non-compliance with Section 50 did not vitiate his conviction.
- Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish2024 · 2 judgesStoring or possessing child sexual exploitative material with the intent specified in Section 15 of the POCSO Act is an offence even without transmission; the High Court's quashing of the prosecution was set aside and the case restored to trial.
Arbitration
- Union of India v. Popular Construction Co.2001 · 2 judgesSection 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; the words 'but not thereafter' in Section 34(3) expressly exclude it.
- Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading S.A.2002 · 3 judgesPart I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to international commercial arbitrations held outside India unless the parties exclude it, so an Indian court can grant interim measures under Section 9 in an ICC arbitration seated in Paris.
- Venture Global Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Ltd.2008 · 2 judgesFollowing Bhatia International, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including Section 34, applies to a foreign award unless excluded by agreement, so the appellant's Indian suit to set aside a London award could proceed.
- N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers2009 · 2 judgesA civil court may refuse to refer a dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the 1996 Act where it involves serious allegations of fraud needing detailed evidence; the original arbitration agreement must also be filed under Section 8(2).
- Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.2012 · 5 judgesThe Constitution Bench held that Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies only to arbitrations seated in India, overruled Bhatia International and Venture Global, and applied this law prospectively to arbitration agreements executed after the judgment.
- Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc.2012 · 3 judgesUnder Section 45 of the Arbitration Act, a person claiming through or under a party, including a non-signatory in exceptional cases of composite transactions, may be referred to arbitration; the Court upheld reference of the whole suit to ICC arbitration.
- TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd.2017 · 3 judgesA Managing Director who has become ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act read with the Seventh Schedule to act as arbitrator cannot nominate another person as sole arbitrator.
- Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia2017 · 2 judgesA landlord's suit for eviction and arrears of rent was held triable by the Civil Court, not by an arbitrator, even though the premises were exempt from the Delhi rent law; the tenant's Section 8 application failed.
- Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.2019 · 2 judgesA party, or its official, interested in the outcome of a dispute cannot unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator; the Court annulled the respondent's appointment and itself appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6).
- BGS SGS Soma JV v. NHPC Ltd.2019 · 3 judgesDesignating a seat of arbitration works as an exclusive jurisdiction clause for the courts at the seat; an order returning a Section 34 petition is not appealable under Section 37; New Delhi was held to be the seat.
- Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation2020 · 3 judgesThe Court laid down a four-fold test for non-arbitrability, overruled Himangni Enterprises to hold landlord-tenant disputes under the Transfer of Property Act arbitrable, and confined courts under Sections 8 and 11 to a prima facie review.
- Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd.2021 · 2 judgesAn Emergency Arbitrator's interim award under institutional rules agreed by the parties is an order under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration Act, enforceable under Section 17(2), and no appeal lies against an enforcement order under Section 17(2).
- N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd.2023 · 5 judgesBy majority, an arbitration agreement in an instrument chargeable with stamp duty that is unstamped or insufficiently stamped does not exist in law and cannot be acted upon until the instrument is validated under the Stamp Act.
- Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.2023 · 5 judgesThe group of companies doctrine is valid in Indian arbitration law and can bind a non-signatory group company where the parties' mutual intention shows it, but it cannot rest on the phrase "claiming through or under".
- In Re: Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act 18992023 · 7 judgesA seven-judge bench held that an unstamped or insufficiently stamped agreement is inadmissible in evidence but not void, and that objections about stamping are for the arbitral tribunal, not the referral court under Sections 8 or 11.
- SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning2024 · 3 judgesA full and final settlement does not end the arbitration agreement; a plea of accord and satisfaction is for the arbitral tribunal, and the referral court under Section 11 only checks the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement.
- Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV)2024 · 5 judgesEqual treatment under Section 18 applies to the appointment of arbitrators; unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator, or compelling the other party to choose from a panel curated by one party, is invalid; the ruling for three-member tribunals is prospective.
- Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.2025 · 5 judgesA court hearing a challenge under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has a limited power to modify an arbitral award, exercisable only in specified circumstances.
Family Law
- Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum1985 · 5 judgesA five-Judge Bench held that a divorced Muslim wife unable to maintain herself may claim maintenance from her former husband under Section 125 CrPC, and that Mahr is not a sum payable 'on divorce' under Section 127(3)(b).
- Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi1991 · 2 judgesA foreign divorce decree passed by a court lacking jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, on a ground unknown to that Act, against a wife who did not submit to the forum, cannot be recognised in India.
- Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India1995 · 2 judgesA Hindu husband who converts to Islam and marries again without dissolving his Hindu marriage contracts an invalid second marriage, which is void for the purposes of Section 494 IPC, and he is guilty of bigamy.
- Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India1999 · 3 judgesThe Court read the word 'after' in Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 as 'in the absence of', so that a mother can act as natural guardian during the father's lifetime, and upheld the provision.
- Danial Latifi v. Union of India2001 · 5 judgesThe Court upheld the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, reading Section 3(1)(a) to require the husband to make, within the iddat period, a reasonable and fair provision for the divorced wife's future, not limited to iddat.
- S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra2006 · 2 judgesA house owned exclusively by the mother-in-law is not a 'shared household' under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, and the daughter-in-law cannot claim a right to reside there; the High Court's order letting her stay was set aside.
- Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain2009 · 2 judgesConsent to a mutual divorce petition under Section 13-B must continue until the decree, and only the Supreme Court under Article 142 can grant divorce despite withdrawal; it did so here.
- Prakash v. Phulavati2015 · 2 judgesThe Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 is prospective: a daughter gets coparcenary rights under amended Section 6 only if both she and her coparcener father were alive on 9 September 2005.
- Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora2016 · 2 judgesThe words 'adult male' in the definition of 'respondent' in Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 violate Article 14 and were struck down, so women and non-adults can be respondents; the proviso became otiose.
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India2017 · 5 judgesBy a majority of 3:2 the Supreme Court set aside the practice of talaq-e-biddat (instant triple talaq), the majority judges resting on different grounds: manifest arbitrariness under Article 14, and inconsistency with the Quran and Shariat.
- Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur2017 · 2 judgesThe six month waiting period for the second motion in a mutual consent divorce under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is directory; the court hearing the matter may waive it on stated conditions.
- Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar2018 · 2 judgesDaughters of a Mitakshara coparcener, though born before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, were held entitled to an equal share with sons in a partition suit that was still pending when amended Section 6 came into force in 2005.
- Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma2020 · 3 judgesA daughter is a coparcener by birth under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as substituted in 2005, with the same rights and liabilities as a son, whether or not her father was alive on 9 September 2005.
- Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja2020 · 3 judgesA shared household under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act need not belong to the husband or his joint family; S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra was held not good law, and the owner's civil suit was remanded for trial.
- Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan2023 · 5 judgesThe Supreme Court can, under Article 142(1), waive the six-month period under Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act on a settlement, and can dissolve a marriage that has irretrievably broken down even if one spouse opposes.
- Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana2024 · 2 judgesA divorced Muslim woman may claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC; the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 adds to that remedy and does not displace it.
Evidence
- Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh1952The Court acquitted an Excise Commissioner and a contractor of forging a tender and an antedated letter, holding that circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis but guilt and that an admission must be used as a whole.
- Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab1952 · 3 judgesThe Court acquitted the appellant under Section 201 IPC, holding that her wholly exculpatory statement was not a confession and was inadmissible, that a confession cannot be accepted in part, and that no offence causing death was proved.
- Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay1957 · 3 judgesThe Court held that no absolute rule of law or prudence requires a dying declaration to be corroborated before it can found a conviction, and upheld the appellant's murder conviction and death sentence on three consistent dying declarations.
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1984 · 3 judgesThe Court set aside the appellant's conviction and death sentence for poisoning his wife, holding that circumstantial evidence must satisfy the five conditions drawn from Hanumant's case and that a false defence cannot fill gaps in the prosecution chain.
- Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal1993 · 2 judgesCourts in India cannot order a blood group test as a matter of course; the husband must first make out a strong prima facie case of non-access to displace the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
- Paparambaka Rosamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh1999 · 3 judgesThe Court set aside convictions under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC that rested only on a dying declaration, because the doctor certified only that the injured was conscious, not that she was in a fit state of mind.
- Laxman v. State of Maharashtra2002 · 5 judgesA dying declaration recorded by a magistrate satisfied of the declarant's fitness can be acted upon without a doctor's certificate of fitness, if the court holds it voluntary and truthful; Paparambaka Rosamma was held not correctly decided.
- State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu2005 · 2 judgesIn the Parliament attack case the Court held a POTA confession inadmissible against co-accused, upheld Mohd. Afzal's conviction and death sentence, convicted Shaukat only under Section 123 IPC, and upheld the acquittals of S.A.R. Gilani and Afsan Guru.
- Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik2014 · 2 judgesHolding that an accurate DNA test report prevails over the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, the Court set aside maintenance ordered for a child whom DNA tests showed was not the husband's.
- Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer2014 · 3 judgesSecondary evidence of an electronic record is admissible only with a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act; Navjot Sandhu was overruled on this point, and the election petition based on uncertified CDs failed.
- Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh2018 · 2 judgesA party producing electronic evidence who is not in possession of the device cannot be required to produce a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act; the requirement is procedural and may be relaxed in the interest of justice.
- Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal2020 · 3 judgesA certificate under Section 65B(4), Evidence Act is a condition precedent to admitting secondary evidence of an electronic record; Anvar P.V. was affirmed as clarified, and Shafhi Mohammad and Tomaso Bruno were held not to state the law correctly.
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)2022 · 5 judgesIf the complainant's direct evidence of a bribe demand is unavailable, demand and acceptance can be proved by other oral, documentary or circumstantial evidence, and guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act inferred.
Criminal Procedure
- State of Rajasthan v. Balchand1977 · 2 judgesStating that the basic rule is bail, not jail, the Court released on bail a respondent who had surrendered after the State was granted leave to appeal against his acquittal by the High Court.
- Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab1980 · 5 judgesThe Constitution Bench held that the discretion of the High Court and Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is wide and must not be cut down by reading in limitations the legislature did not impose.
- Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand1980 · 2 judgesA municipality cannot plead lack of funds to escape its statutory duty to provide sanitation; a Magistrate under Section 133 CrPC must order abatement of a public nuisance and may give specific, time-bound directions to a public body.
- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra2010 · 2 judgesFollowing the Constitution Bench in Sibbia, anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC need not be confined to exceptional cases or limited in time, and ordinarily continues till the end of the trial unless cancelled.
- Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh2013 · 5 judgesRegistration of an FIR under Section 154 CrPC is mandatory when the information discloses a cognizable offence; a limited preliminary inquiry is allowed only to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, in specified kinds of cases.
- Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar2014 · 2 judgesPolice must not arrest automatically for offences punishable with up to seven years; they must record why arrest is necessary under Section 41 CrPC, and Magistrates must scrutinise those reasons before authorising detention.
- Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh2019 · 3 judgesUntil Parliament makes an express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Judicial Magistrate may order a person to give a voice sample for the investigation of a crime; this does not violate Article 20(3).
- Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2020 · 5 judgesAnticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC need not be limited to a fixed period and may continue till the end of trial, though courts may impose conditions, including limits on time, where the facts of a case require.
- Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation2022 · 2 judgesReaffirming that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the Court explained the bail provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, adopted a categorisation of offences for bail, and issued directions to investigating agencies, courts and governments.
- Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana2025 · 2 judgesInforming an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); failure to do so vitiates the arrest and remand, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.
- Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat2025 · 2 judgesThe Court quashed an FIR against a Member of Parliament for posting a video with a poem, holding that no offence was made out and that police and courts must protect freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Law of Contract
- Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co.1953 · 3 judgesThe Court held that frustration in India is governed by Section 56 of the Contract Act, reading 'impossible' in a practical sense, and that wartime requisition of the land did not frustrate a contract to sell a plot.
- Seth Ganga Dhar v. Shankar Lal1958A term postponing redemption of a mortgage for eighty-five years was held not to be a clog on the equity of redemption, as the bargain was fair; the redemption suit filed before that period ended was premature.
- Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya1959 · 3 judgesA partnership formed to carry on wagering transactions is not unlawful under Section 23 of the Contract Act, because a wager, though void under Section 30, is not forbidden by law, opposed to public policy or immoral.
- Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Das1963 · 5 judgesSection 74 of the Contract Act applies to every stipulation by way of penalty, including forfeiture of money already paid; the seller could keep only the Rs. 1,000 earnest money, not the Rs. 24,000 part price, without proof of loss.
- Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas and Co.1965 · 3 judgesBy majority, the Court held that a contract made by telephone is complete where the acceptance is heard by the offeror, so the Ahmedabad court, where acceptance was received, had jurisdiction over the suit.
- Subhas Chandra Das Mushib v. Ganga Prosad Das Mushib1966 · 3 judgesThe Court held that undue influence under Section 16 of the Contract Act must be specifically pleaded and proved in stages, and that no presumption of undue influence arises merely from the donor's old age or close relationship.
- Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.1967 · 2 judgesA negative covenant barring an employee from similar work elsewhere during the term of employment is not a restraint of trade under Section 27, Contract Act, unless the contract is one-sided or unconscionable; it may be enforced by limited injunction.
- Superintendence Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Krishan Murgai1980 · 3 judgesA covenant barring the employee from competing for two years 'after you leave the company' did not apply where the employer terminated his services, so no injunction could issue; the appeal was dismissed.
- Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority2015 · 2 judgesDDA could not forfeit the earnest money because the bidder committed no breach and DDA suffered no loss; Section 74 of the Contract Act covers forfeiture of earnest money under a contract and requires loss.
Property Law
- Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor1959 · 3 judgesBy majority, two cloak rooms in the Imperial Hotel let to a hair-dresser were 'rooms in a hotel' excluded from the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947, so no standard rent could be fixed; the appeal was allowed.
- Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu2003 · 3 judgesA person in settled possession of land, even without proving title, can obtain an injunction against a defendant who also fails to prove title; even the true owner must use due process of law to evict him.
- Suraj Lamp and Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana2011 · 3 judgesSale Agreement/General Power of Attorney/Will (GPA sale) transactions do not convey title or create any interest in immovable property; immovable property can be transferred only by a registered deed of conveyance.
- Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd.2013 · 2 judgesA purchaser who bought the suit property during a specific performance suit, with notice of the prior agreement and in breach of a restraint order, was not a bona fide purchaser but was allowed to be added as a defendant.
- Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki2014 · 3 judgesCompensation is 'paid' under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act only if it is offered and, where a Section 31(2) contingency prevents payment, deposited in the reference court; deposit in the government treasury does not count, so the acquisition lapsed.
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal2020 · 5 judgesUnder Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, an acquisition lapses only if neither possession was taken nor compensation paid; tender of compensation is payment, and Pune Municipal Corporation was overruled.
- Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain2023 · 2 judgesNo title to immovable property passes under an unregistered agreement to sell or general power of attorney, so a suit for possession and mesne profits founded on such documents is not maintainable.
Administrative Law
- A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India1969The Court set aside selections to the Indian Forest Service from Jammu and Kashmir because the Acting Chief Conservator, himself a candidate, sat on the Selection Board, holding that natural justice applies to administrative proceedings.
- Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner1977 · 5 judgesThe Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Election Commission's cancellation of a poll and order for a fresh poll was barred by Article 329(b), leaving every relief to be sought in an election petition.
- S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India1990 · 5 judgesAn administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record reasons unless the requirement is excluded expressly or by necessary implication, but the Army Act and Rules exclude it for confirmation of court-martial findings and post-confirmation petitions.
- Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries1992 · 3 judgesThe State and its instrumentalities must act non-arbitrarily under Article 14 even in contractual matters; rejecting the highest tender for a significantly higher bid obtained through negotiations open to all tenderers was a fair and valid exercise of power.
- Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation1993 · 2 judgesLegitimate expectation is not a legal right; it mainly entitles a person to fair consideration or a hearing and yields to overriding public interest and policy. The Railways' bona fide dual pricing of cast steel bogies was upheld with modifications.
- Om Kumar v. Union of India2000 · 2 judgesWhere a disciplinary punishment is challenged as arbitrary under Article 14, courts review it only on Wednesbury principles as secondary reviewers, not on proportionality; the punishments of the DDA officers were not reopened.
Law of Torts
- State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati1962 · 5 judgesThe State of Rajasthan was held vicariously liable for the death caused by the rash and negligent driving of a Government jeep by its employee, since the act was unconnected with sovereign powers; the State's appeal was dismissed.
- Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh1964 · 5 judgesAlthough police officers negligently lost gold seized from the appellant's partner, the State was not liable in damages because the powers to arrest, search and seize are sovereign powers; the appeal was dismissed.
- Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti1966 · 2 judgesThe Court held the Municipal Corporation liable in negligence for deaths caused by the collapse of its 80-year-old Clock Tower in Chandni Chowk, applying res ipsa loquitur and the owner's duty for structures beside a highway, and upheld the damages.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India1986 · 5 judgesAn enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely liable for harm caused by an accident in it, without the Rylands v. Fletcher exceptions, and the Court may award compensation under Article 32 in appropriate cases.
- Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India1991 · 5 judgesOn review, the Court upheld the US $470 million Bhopal settlement and its Article 142 power to record it, but revived the quashed criminal proceedings and declared the Union of India liable to meet any shortfall in the fund.
- N. Nagendra Rao and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh1994 · 2 judgesThe State is vicariously liable for the negligence of its officers in discharging statutory duties under the Essential Commodities Act, and cannot plead sovereign immunity; the owner of seized goods that deteriorated in custody was entitled to their price.
Civil Procedure
- Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh1968 · 5 judgesA civil suit lay to recover sales tax collected under notifications void under Article 301, despite the bar in Section 17 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act; the Court stated seven principles on exclusion of civil court jurisdiction.
- Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden1990 · 2 judgesThe Court laid down guidelines for interlocutory mandatory injunctions and restored an injunction keeping a stranger purchaser out of a family dwelling house under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act.
- Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee v. Som Nath Dass2000 · 2 judgesGuru Granth Sahib installed in a gurdwara is a juristic person that can hold property; the High Court's contrary view was set aside and the Tribunal's finding that the disputed land belonged to the gurdwara was restored.
- Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala2000 · 3 judgesThe Court held that dismissal of a special leave petition, whether by a speaking or non-speaking order, does not attract the doctrine of merger, so the High Court's order remained open to review by the High Court.
- Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd.2022 · 2 judgesPre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory; a suit filed in breach of it must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a declaration made effective from 20.08.2022.
Company Law
- Bacha F. Guzdar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay1954 · 5 judgesA dividend paid by a tea company is not agricultural income in the shareholder's hands, though 60% of the company's income is exempt, because it arises from the shareholder's investment in the company, not from any direct association with land.
- Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd.1985 · 5 judgesThe Court held that Reserve Bank permission under Section 29(1)(b) FERA could be ex post facto, and that LIC, as a shareholder, could requisition a general meeting to change directors without giving reasons or facing Article 14 review.
- Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd.1996 · 2 judgesThe Court upheld the sanction of a scheme of amalgamation under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, holding that the Company Court's role is supervisory, not appellate, and laying down the broad limits of that jurisdiction.
- Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd.2021 · 3 judgesThe Court set aside the NCLAT order reinstating Cyrus Mistry and restraining Tata Sons, holding that no case of oppressive or prejudicial conduct under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 was made out.
Environmental Law
- Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar1991 · 2 judgesThe right to life under Article 21 includes the right to pollution free water and air, but a petition under Article 32 filed to pursue a personal grudge in the garb of public interest litigation was dismissed with costs.
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India1996 · 2 judgesChemical industries that polluted soil and groundwater at Bichhri were held absolutely liable under the Oleum Gas Leak rule and the polluter pays principle to bear the cost of remedial measures, and their plants were ordered closed.
- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India1996 · 3 judgesThe Court held that the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of Indian environmental law, and directed an authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to assess and recover compensation from polluting tanneries in Tamil Nadu.
- M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath1996 · 2 judgesDeclaring the public trust doctrine part of Indian law, the Court quashed the 1994 lease of forest land on the Beas river bank to Span Motels and directed the motel to pay for restoring the environment.
Insolvency Law
- Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India2019 · 2 judgesThe Court upheld the constitutional validity of the challenged provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, including the financial and operational creditor distinction and Sections 12A, 29A and 53, and directed Circuit Benches of the NCLAT.
- Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India2019 · 3 judgesThe 2018 amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code treating home buyers (allottees) as financial creditors are constitutionally valid; RERA and the Code operate concurrently, the Code prevailing in case of conflict.
- Manish Kumar v. Union of India2021 · 3 judgesThe Court upheld the 2020 IBC amendments: the threshold of 100 or ten per cent for allottees and certain financial creditors under Section 7, the deemed withdrawal of pending applications, Explanation II to Section 11, and Section 32A.
- Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.2021 · 3 judgesOnce the Adjudicating Authority approves a resolution plan under Section 31 IBC, it binds all creditors including governments, and every claim not in the plan, statutory dues included, stands extinguished; the 2019 amendment is clarificatory.
Intellectual Property
- R.G. Anand v. Delux Films1978 · 3 judgesThere is no copyright in an idea or theme, only in its form and expression; the film 'New Delhi' was not a substantial or material copy of the play 'Hum Hindustani', so no infringement was proved.
- Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.2001 · 3 judgesIn a passing off dispute over the drug marks Falcigo and Falcitab, the Court left the refusal of interim injunction undisturbed but held that a stricter test of deceptive similarity applies to medicinal products, and listed the relevant factors.
- Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak2007 · 2 judgesA derivative work needs a minimal degree of creativity, not mere skill, labour and capital, for copyright; SCC's copy-editing of Supreme Court judgments did not qualify, but its paragraphing and indication of concurring or dissenting opinions did.
- Novartis AG v. Union of India2013 · 2 judgesThe Court refused Novartis a patent for the beta crystalline form of Imatinib Mesylate, holding that Imatinib Mesylate was known from the Zimmermann patent and that the beta form failed the enhanced therapeutic efficacy test of Section 3(d).
Limitation
- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji1987 · 2 judgesThe Court held that 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must be applied liberally to do substantial justice, that the State is entitled to the same treatment as any litigant, and condoned a four-day delay.
- Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy2013 · 2 judgesThe Court set aside the High Court's condonation of a 2449 day delay in a school managing committee's appeal, and set out principles and guidelines for deciding applications for condonation of delay.
- Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur2019 · 3 judgesA person who has perfected title by adverse possession can sue as plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to declare title, protect possession or recover it; Gurudwara Sahab v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala was overruled.
Professional Ethics
- Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar1975 · 4 judgesSoliciting briefs by snatching, fighting for and undercutting clients is professional misconduct; the Bar Council of India's tribunal erred in reading Rule 36 as requiring three technical elements and in treating it as the only source of professional ethics.
- R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma2000An advocate has no lien over a client's litigation files for unpaid fees; refusing to return the files on demand is misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, though the punishment here was reduced to a reprimand.
- Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India2002 · 5 judgesLawyers have no right to go on strike or call for a boycott of courts, even a token strike; courts need not adjourn for strikes, and a lawyer who abstains while holding a vakalat is personally liable for costs.
Labour Law
- Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa1978 · 7 judgesA seven-Judge Bench gave 'industry' in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act a wide meaning under the triple test, overruled Safdarjung and other restrictive decisions, and dismissed the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board's appeal.
- Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd.2014 · 3 judgesWorkers engaged by a contractor to run a statutory canteen are workers of the factory only for the Factories Act, 1948; to be its employees for all purposes, the employer must exercise effective and absolute control over them.
Negotiable Instruments
- Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd.2012 · 3 judgesA company must be arraigned as an accused before its directors, signatories or officers can be prosecuted under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; the same applies to Section 85 of the Information Technology Act.
- Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar2025 · 2 judgesThe Court restored a cheque bounce conviction set aside in revision, held that breach of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act does not displace the Section 139 presumption, and issued guidelines for Section 138 cases.