Famous Landmark Cases in India

Famous Landmark Cases in India: Landmark cases are the ones that have a large impact on the judicial system of the country. These are those cases which on presenting before the Supreme Court result in considerable amendments in the law that are capable of changing the entire notion of fundamental rights prescribed in the Constitution. It changes the law and the previous interpretation of the law which is further converted by either introducing new laws or making changes in the pre-existing laws.

In this article, we have covered the Top 25 Famous Landmark Cases in India, their judgments, verdicts, etc. Additionally, we have provided UPSC questions as well on these famous landmark cases.

1. Shah Bano Case (1985)

• In 1985, a case of Muhammad Ahmad Khan v/s Shah Bano Begum case came under the notice of the Supreme Court which questioned the rights given to Muslim women. A Muslim woman named Shah Bano demanded the maintenance after her husband divorced her. She demanded that the amount must continue for her as she had no other way of funds and that her husband should give her even after the iddat period. Iddat is the period a Muslim woman observes after the divorce or death of her husband during which she is not supposed to marry another man.

• This case stirred up a controversy between Islamic law as it stated the ideals of differing religions having differing rituals. However, a 5 judge bench led by YV Chandrachud, the current Chief Justice of India stated the new rule that maintenance be given to the Muslim woman even after the iddat period as long as the woman is not financially stable on herself. The Supreme Court has also increased the sum of maintenance.

• This case led to an increase in demand for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC).

2. Nirbhaya Case (2012)

• In 2012, in a private bus, a 23-year-old girl was gang raped by 6 men in the south Delhi region. Her name was Jyoti Singh but due to the government’s orders in cases of sexual assault, the victim’s name was not allowed to be used, the case was referred to as Nirbhaya.

• In 2020, 4 of the perpetrators were hanged to death, 1 of them was suspected of performing suicide, whereas the other one was sentenced to life imprisonment. However, this case revoked widespread protests, one such leading to the consideration of age as adults in such heinous crimes as rape and murder. With the acceptance of more than 80,000 suggestions, the bench led by JS Verma which was formed to deal with the verdicts related to sexual cases stated that such cases occurred due to the failure on the part of the government.

• With this incident came the amendment in Juvenile Justice Bill in 2015 to consider 16 years of people involved in rape cases too as the perpetrators and be accused of the crime and sentenced to death. Thereby came the rule and demand of giving the accused a death penalty only instead of life imprisonment.

3. Habeas Corpus Case (1975)

• The literal meaning of the term Habeas Corpus is “you should have the body”. It was the term coined when a person, or more peculiarly, a prisoner could approach the court if he wanted for his unlawful detention.

• There are many cases that are concerned with Habeas corpus as it it is beneficial for the exercise of one’s own fundamental rights. Many cases such as the ADM Jabalpur case, or the Indira Gandhi case of National emergency in 1975 were declared as Habeas corpus, as these cases resulted in defying the odds and following what’s written as a law and fundamental in the Constitution.

• When National emergency was declared in 1975 during the ruling of Indira Gandhi, that’s when so many politicians were put behind bars, they felt the need to reach the court for their unlawful detention, without any prior notice from the court. Since then Habeas corpus is used as a term in many cases.

4. Triple Talaq Judgement (2016)

• This case is referred to as one of the most important judgements in the Indian history of cases as it led to the discontinuation of talaq-e-biddat, a term that allowed Muslim men to divorce their wives by simply uttering the word talaq three times.

• A woman named Shayara Bano reached the court demanding amendments in the law, stating that the talaq-e-biddat was an arbitrary and a law uncalled for. This also allowed men to remarry the first wife, after again divorcing the second wife.

• It was then in 2019 that Muslim Women Act came into effect that declared the practice of talaq-e-biddat as illegal and announced a jail of 3 years on practising this.

5. Independent Thought v/s Union of India (2017)

• This case before the Supreme Court of India argued that if the girl involved in marriage is of 15-18 years, then the sexual intercourse would be referred to as marital rape. It involved repeated use of Article 21 that stated that every girl has the right to live her life with dignity.

• Regarding the terms and definitions associated with this case, POCSO Act – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (2012) was used and amendments were made in the act that declared the amendment that the sexual intercourse between a man and a woman of 15-18 years of age is considered as a rape.

6. Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India (1978)

• Maneka Gandhi filed a case in the court regarding the seizure of her passport due to security reasons, and defined it as the threat to one’s personal liberty. She stated that this was not at all in the interests of the public and it deprived one of it’s own individual rights.

• The case was referred to Article 21 that says no person must be deprived of it’s life or personal liberty due to the law. It overrruled the AK Gopalan case that resulted in the decision that the Article 21 does not only provide rights to the individual but is also concerned with many other rights including those of personal liberty.

7. Kesavananda Bharti v/s State of Kerala (1973)

• It is also known as the fundamental rights case as it resulted in the decision that certain rights can’t be changed in the constitution and they need to be followed. It was carried forward by a panel of 15 judges, one of the largest benches in the history of legal cases of India.

• The Head of Hindu Monastery, Swami Kesavananda Bharti argued for his right to manage the land he owned religiously and that the government had no right to impose land restrictions on it. This case led to the conclusion that there are some basic rights and fundamentals in the constitution that cannot be changed. There needs to be a set of limitations imposed on the amendment of Constitution as well. It stated that it could take away the property of citizens as and when required.

8. AK Gopalan v/s State of Madras (1950)

• This case revolved primarily around the basic concepts of Article 21 which stated that it needed to resort to the fundamental right of personal liberty. However, cases such as detention of many political leaders during national emergency in 1947, and detaining anyone without trials or court hearings in 1950 led the communist leader AK Gopalan to fight for rights of an individual.

• This case led to the introduction of the term Natural Justice, that means everyone is entitled with the right to be heard, and be present before the court all by fair means.

9. KS Puttaswamy v/s Union of India (2017)

• This case led to the belief in existence and importance of the fundamental right of Right to privacy which in earlier cases was observed that this right is not considered as an important one. Thus, this case overruled the judgements of many previous cases such as The ADM Jabalpur Case which was the suspension of Article 21.
• It also stated on grounds that there would be no biasing or discrimination on the basis of homosexuality. Everyone has the right to privacy and the right to live a life of liberty and dignity.

10. MC Mehta v/s Union of India (1986)

• This was a case that dealt with environmental advocay. MC Mehta India’s green lawyer argued the closure of industries having adverse effects on people and the environment. This case came by after the Oleum as leakage, and the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

• It was the first ever judgement that the Supreme Court passed regarding the closure of industries. It also held the industries responsible at the first place resulting in such mishaps. It stated that if any industry is operating, then it is solely responsible for the prevention of it’s employees and people living nearby. It also asked such dangerous industries to be shifted to places with lesser human population.

11. Indra Sawhney v/s Union of India (1992)

• Also known as the Mandal Verdict, this case revolves around the matters of providing reservation to the OBCs by the removal of creamy layer or not. This case argued for the fact that reservation removed equality and this would deter other castes from receiving equal opportunities as case can’t be the term defined for backwardness.

• The court however overruled the fact saying that caste is and will be used for identification in terms of backwardness and removed the creamy layer for OBCs, but refrained from doing so for SCs, STs .

12. SR Bommai v/s Union of India (1994)

• This case argued for the centre state relations as and how concerned with the Article 356. It states that under Presidential rule, if the state is unable to function properly then the central government can take the full responsibility. However, the motion stated was that if under presidential ruling, the governor takes further decisions that is appointed by the president itself, it rules out the thought of federal system and makes the functioning of the government inefficient.

• In terms of Article 356, even BR Ambedkar termed it as a Dead Letter. He stated that just to fulfill some means some articles have been added in the constitution otherwise the articles have no meaning in real life as they can’t be put into use.

13. State of Haryana v/s State of Punjab(2002)

• The dispute of the formation of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal was resolved in this case. A 214 km long tunnel was supposed to be built to divide water equally among both the states, out of which the 92 km had been built by Haryana, but the remaining 122 km was remaining to be built by Punjab.

• Haryana in 1999 filed a case regarding the construction of the tunnel where Punjab cited financial reasons stating it would be unable to build the tunnel at the required point of time. At last during the final hearings, the union government was put into action to complete the process of tunnel formation in 2002.

14. Coca Cola v/s Bisleri (2009)

• Also referred to as the Maaza Conflict, this case was concerned with the laws related to trademark and one’s authority over a product. When in Turkey, Maaza was registered officially under Bisleri, Coca Cola had bought the company and it’s name. Thus, Bisleri could not sell it anywhere accept Turkey.

• After some years, when in 2008, Bisleri registered itself for Maaza, Coca Cola sued Bisleri seeking the help of court citing facts that Bisleri had been using the trademarked name. With further proceedings and hearings, it was concluded that Bisleri had registered itself legally and that it could officially sell Maaza. Maaza could be sold anywhere but in India it would acquire the name of Coca Cola.

15. Article 370 Judgement (2019)

• One of the most important and controversial judgements in the history of Indian judiciary has been the removal of Article 370. Article 370 provided Jammu & Kashmir a special status, one different from India and other states and restricted the involvement of the Union government in matters of security, external affairs and defence of J&K.

• Thus, the removal of J&K has led to the removal of it as a state and introduction of two new union territories Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh. This will help the state come at par with other Indian states, thus providing the benefit of equality of opportunity and converting the state from an independent princely state to an equal state.

16. Lily Thomas v/s Union of India (2000)

• This case again was a development in the direction of implementation of the need of Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Lily Thomas, a lawyer argued for the changes and improvement in laws concerned with family and marriage.

• The arguments for the case were that people resolved to marrying many number of times which did not augur well for the wife. There was a need to first divorce the first wife and only then remarry the second person. However, this stirred controversies as according to Muslim laws a person could have 4 wives at once and could marry multiple times by treating each wife with the same amount of love and respect.

• However, the court overruled the fact and stated that in order to remarry a person must dissolve his or her previous marriage else it would be a punishable offence before the law.

17. Arnesh Kumar v/s State of Bihar (2014)

• This was the case which had a high support of activists for men’s rights. It revolved around the story of Arnesh Kumar who was accused of asking dowry from his wife, and his wife stated that she was forced to pay the amount and on failing to do so, she was kicked out of the house. Arnesh was seeking an anticipatory bail but could not receive so. Thus , he reached the court regarding this issue.

• The main arguments he stated were that even if convicted of accusations, temporary bails can’t be provided and that the arrest must be justifiable. This was because it was observed that for crimes with less than 7 years of imprisonment the arrest used to take place on a very speedy note without proper identification of the matter.

18. 3 Judges Case (1998)

• In 1981, a single judge case was presented before the supreme court, called The SP Gupta v/s Union of India that argued for the then regime of executive being more powerful than the judiciary.

• In 1993, a two judge case was presented before the supreme court that argued for the Collegium System. It is a system in which the existing senior judges elect the judges for the upcoming tenure with the Chief Justice mandate, and a bench of 2 senior judges. However this raised several concerns of nepotism and partiality.

• In 1998, a three judge case was formed which concluded to the hearing that the collegium system would continue, but with the major approval of the Chief Justice of India along with 4 senior most judges and if 2 judges or more are against the selection of a candidate, the system would not proceed on with that particular candidate as a judge.

19. TSR Subramanian v/s Union of India (2013)

• An IAS Officer from the UP Cadre, TSR Subramanian argued for the officers and civil servants to not be objected to the political influence and that they should have a freedom of opinion, rather than striving forcefully on what the politician says.

• He said that civil servants must not be bounded to the sayings of politicians as this will ensure a transparent and good governance without any sense of misconduct.

20. Berubari Union Case (1960)

• This dealt with the partitioning of Berubari, a state in West Bengal and how much part of it is concerned with India and how much with Pakistan. Under Article 368 & Article 3, the court gave the judgement that equal parts would be divided to both the countries.

• This case signified the importance of Article 3 as the Constitution gives powers to the judiciary to solve any disputes regarding state matters. And Article 368 gives powers to amend the constitution and thereby, came the Berubari Amendment Act.

21. Shankari Prasad v/s Union of India (1951)

• This case argued for the fact that the Judiciary was not entitled to amending fundamental rights. Shankari Prasad, a landlord owner from Bihar registered a case as his land was seized by the government.

• According to Article 368, it allowed amendment in the Constitutional rights, thus giving the statement that the Parliament could amend even basic fundamental rights as there lies scope of improvement for every.

22. Minerva Mills Case v/s Union of India (1980)

• This case was a landmark judgement as it evolved the doctrine (basic set of rights) of the Constitution. It stated that India, being a sovereign country has some rights on which neither the Legislature, the Judiciary or the Executive had excessive rights or rights less than the constitution to amend it. Apart from this, the 3 functioning bodies did not have the authority to destroy rights.

• During 1980, when there was a decline in production of industries, all were put into inspection and Minerva Mills was one under them. On a decline in numbers, Minerva Mills was also nationalised and this led to the Minerva Mills case as it reaffirmed that the Constitution could amend basic and fundamental rights of the Constitution as and when the situation required.

23. Waman Rao v/s Union of India (1981)

• This case was an addition to the judgement of Kesavananda Bharti (1973) with several amendments in Article 31 and it’s sections. It said that property seizure of owners did not violate the laws of constitution and referred to sections A, B and C of the Constitution.

• Article 31 (A) said that the government could acquire private property of people according to the then scenario. Article 31 (B) said that the person however won’t be deprived of their land after the seizure or before. Article 31 (C) however removed afterwards, being declared as unconstitutional, it was a method to protect laws of seizure of land. It prevented the government from acquiring lands of people, thus it was marked down.

24. Bilkis Bano Case (2023)

• It was inn 2002 during the riots between Hindus and Muslim (communal riots) in Gujarat, a Muslim woman was gang raped and the mobs even tried to kills rest of her family members who had decided to flee from the place. She was 5 months pregnant at that time and decided to approach the court.

• The court, under Article 32, stated that every person had the right to approach the court to seek their fundamental rights. Thus, the 11 convicts of Bilkis Bano were sentenced to a 14 year long imprisonment and with this Bilkis Bano was given with an amount of 50 lakhs, a government job and a house.

25. NOTA Judgement(2013)

• NOTA meaning None of The Above is a term that is still in discussion to be used in polls or not. It’s a term that the PUCL (People’s Union for Civil Liberties) wanted to have included in the evms, so as in to provide the political parties with a wider perspective of their voters. The machines would have an option of none of the above that would say the voter does not want to vote for any.

• The Supreme Court laid it’s judgement that the NOTA would provide political parties with a constructive opinion so as in to select better candidates next time. However, in many countries it has been observed that the percentage of NOTA considerably increases than the votes of any particular candidate, and if implemented this would largely change the very state of election in India as well.

• The final conclusion was that this would heavily increase the dependency of voters and the tasks on the evms checkers. Thus, in the present scenario it is better to stick without a NOTA voting system.

UPSC Questions on Famous Landmark Cases in India

1. Discuss the significance of the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case in the context of the Indian Constitution. How did this judgment redefine the doctrine of the basic structure?

2. Evaluate the impact of the Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan case on gender equality and workplace safety in India.

3. Analyze the Shayara Bano v. Union of India case and its role in shaping the discourse on personal laws and gender justice in India.

4. Examine the implications of the Indira Sawhney v. Union of India case on the reservation policies in India.

5. Discuss the Habeas Corpus Case (ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla) of 1976 and its impact on the fundamental rights during the Emergency period in India.