Landmark Judgements That Transformed India

From Shankari Prasad (1951) to Davinder Singh (2024) — 22 Supreme Court judgements that have reshaped India's constitutional framework, defined fundamental rights, established the Basic Structure doctrine, secured judicial independence, and protected democratic values. This is among the highest-weightage topics in UPSC GS-II.

UPSC Prelims · Mains GS-II Laxmikanth Ch. 11, 22, 31 ~28 min read Basic Structure · Art. 21 · Collegium 1951 – 2024

Overview & Categories
Cases 1–5: Amendability of FRs
Cases 6–10: Emergency & Rights Expansion
Cases 11–15: Judiciary, Federalism & Reservation
Cases 16–20: NJAC, Privacy & Identity
Cases 21–22: Recent Landmark Cases
Summary Table — All 22 Cases
Diagram A: Basic Structure Timeline
Diagram B: Art. 21 Expansion
Diagram C: Quick Reference Table
Prelims PYQs
Mains PYQs
Revision Box & UPSC Traps

Conceptual Clarity — Why Landmark Judgements Matter for UPSC

Indian constitutional law has been shaped not just by Parliament but by the Supreme Court acting as its guardian. Three broad themes organise these judgements:

Amending Power vs. Basic Structure (1951–2024): Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights? What is the Basic Structure doctrine? Kesavananda Bharati (1973) is the most important constitutional case in Indian history.
Expanding Art. 21 — Right to Life (1978–2024): From a narrow procedural right to an expansive substantive right covering privacy, dignity, education, livelihood, health, and identity.
Democracy, Federalism & Judicial Independence (1994–2024): SR Bommai on Art. 356, Collegium system, Electoral Bonds — cases protecting the structural foundations of the republic.

Colour code used below: Blue = Basic Structure cases | Green = Rights expansion cases | Orange = Democracy/Federalism cases | Purple = Recent (post-2020)

1. Cases 1–5: Amendability of Fundamental Rights (1951–1973)

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India

1951 · Supreme Court · 5-judge bench

Constitutional IssueWhether Parliament's amending power under Art. 368 extends to Fundamental Rights (FRs) in Part III; specifically whether the 1st Constitutional Amendment (adding Art. 15(4)) was valid.

DecisionThe word "law" in Art. 13 does not include a constitutional amendment under Art. 368. Therefore Parliament CAN amend Fundamental Rights. The 1st Amendment was upheld.

Constitutional Impact: Established that FRs are amendable. Settled (temporarily) the tension between Parliament's constituent power and judicial protection of rights. Later overruled by Golaknath (1967).

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan

1951 · Supreme Court · First major FR case post-Constitution

Constitutional IssueValidity of the Communal GO (Government Order) in Madras that reserved seats in state medical and engineering colleges on the basis of religion, race, and caste.

DecisionSC struck down the GO as violating Art. 15(1) (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth). Art. 46 (DPSP) cannot override Art. 15.

Constitutional Impact: Directly triggered the 1st Constitutional Amendment (1951) which added Art. 15(4) — enabling the State to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes or SCs/STs. This is the origin of reservation in education. Also established that DPSPs cannot override FRs.

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

1964 · Supreme Court · 5-judge bench

Constitutional IssueValidity of the 17th Constitutional Amendment (inserting certain State Acts in the 9th Schedule). Whether Parliament can amend FRs under Art. 368.

DecisionMajority confirmed Shankari Prasad — Parliament can amend FRs. However, Justice Hidayatullah J and Justice Mudholkar J dissented, questioning whether Parliament has unlimited amending power.

Constitutional Impact: The first seeds of the Basic Structure doctrine were sown in the dissents. Mudholkar J raised the question of whether there is a "basic feature" of the Constitution that cannot be amended — the germ of the idea that would flower in Kesavananda (1973).

I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab

1967 · Supreme Court · 11-judge bench (6:5 majority)

Constitutional IssueWhether Parliament can curtail or take away Fundamental Rights by a constitutional amendment. Validity of 17th Amendment (land reform laws in 9th Schedule).

DecisionFRs are transcendental and immutable — Parliament has NO power to abridge or take away any Fundamental Right. A constitutional amendment is "law" under Art. 13(2) and hence must not violate FRs. Applied prospective overruling (ruling applies only to future amendments, not to past ones).

Constitutional Impact: Overruled Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh. Effectively froze the Constitution regarding FRs. Parliament responded with the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 29th Amendments to circumvent this ruling. Itself overruled by Kesavananda Bharati (1973) on the specific question of prospective overruling — but the spirit of protecting certain basic features was absorbed into the Basic Structure doctrine.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

1973 · Supreme Court · 13-judge bench (7:6 majority) · Most important case in Indian constitutional law

Constitutional IssueValidity of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and constitutional amendments (24th, 25th, 29th) that sought to override Golaknath. Does Parliament have unlimited amending power? Can it destroy the Constitution itself?

DecisionParliament CAN amend any part of the Constitution including FRs, but CANNOT destroy the Basic Structure (or essential features) of the Constitution. Overruled Golaknath on the question of prospective overruling. Partially upheld the 25th Amendment. Declared that amending power is not constituent power — it is only a derivative power.

Constitutional Impact: Established the Basic Structure Doctrine — the single most important judicial contribution to Indian constitutionalism. Elements of Basic Structure identified include: supremacy of Constitution, republican & democratic form of govt, secular character, separation of powers, federal character, unity & integrity of India, judicial review, rule of law, free and fair elections, and independence of judiciary. The doctrine has been applied in every subsequent amendment challenge and remains the supreme check on Parliamentary power.

Evolution Summary (Cases 1–5): Shankari Prasad (FRs amendable) → Golaknath (FRs NOT amendable; Parliament has no such power) → Kesavananda Bharati (FRs amendable BUT Basic Structure cannot be destroyed). The Kesavananda synthesis is the settled position.

2. Cases 6–10: Emergency, Rights Expansion & Minerva Mills (1975–1980)

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain

1975 · Supreme Court · 5-judge Constitution bench

Constitutional IssueThe Allahabad HC had set aside PM Indira Gandhi's election to Lok Sabha on grounds of corrupt electoral practices. The 39th Amendment added Art. 329A to immunise PM's and Speaker's elections from judicial review and retrospectively validate the PM's election.

DecisionSC struck down Art. 329A (inserted by 39th Amendment) as violating the Basic Structure. A free and fair election is part of the Basic Structure. Parliament cannot use its amending power to validate an election that was set aside for corrupt practices — that would destroy the rule of law and democracy.

Constitutional Impact: First application of the Basic Structure doctrine to strike down a constitutional amendment (Art. 329A). Confirmed that free and fair elections = Basic Structure. The judgment was delivered just after the Emergency (June 1975) was declared. The ruling also upheld the Kesavananda doctrine against a direct legislative challenge.

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (Habeas Corpus Case)

1976 · Supreme Court · 5-judge bench (4:1) · The "darkest hour" of Indian judiciary

Constitutional IssueDuring the Emergency (1975–77), preventive detentions were challenged by habeas corpus petitions. The question: Can Art. 21 (right to life and personal liberty) be suspended during Emergency? Can courts examine the legality of detention?

DecisionMajority (4 judges: Ray CJ, Beg, Chandrachud, Bhagwati JJ): Art. 21 is suspended during Emergency; courts cannot entertain habeas corpus petitions. Justice H.R. Khanna J dissented — the right to life cannot be suspended even during Emergency; it is a natural right that pre-exists the Constitution.

Constitutional Impact: Widely regarded as the Supreme Court's greatest failure — a surrender to executive power during Emergency. Justice Khanna's dissent is celebrated as an act of judicial courage (he was superseded for the post of CJI). The majority view was effectively overruled by the KS Puttaswamy judgment (2017) which held that Art. 21 cannot be suspended even during Emergency. The 44th Amendment (1978) subsequently made Arts. 20 and 21 non-suspendable even during Emergency.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

1978 · Supreme Court · 7-judge bench

Constitutional IssueManeka Gandhi's passport was impounded by the government without giving any reason. Whether "procedure established by law" in Art. 21 means any procedure, or must it be fair, just, and reasonable? Whether Art. 21 is linked to Arts. 14 and 19?

DecisionArt. 21's "procedure established by law" must be right, just, fair, and reasonable — not arbitrary or oppressive. Arts. 14, 19, and 21 are not watertight compartments; they form an inter-linked golden triangle. Any law depriving personal liberty must satisfy all three Articles. Introduced substantive due process into Indian law.

Constitutional Impact: Transformed Art. 21 from a narrow procedural guarantee into a broad substantive right. Overruled A.K. Gopalan (1950) which had held that Arts. 19, 21 operate in separate fields. Opened the floodgates for expansion of Art. 21 to include rights to livelihood (Olga Tellis), education (Unnikrishnan), health, privacy (Puttaswamy), and dignity (Navtej). The golden triangle concept — Arts. 14, 19, 21 — is repeatedly tested in UPSC.

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India

1980 · Supreme Court · 5-judge Constitution bench

Constitutional IssueValidity of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976) which: (a) gave primacy to DPSPs over FRs through a new Art. 31C, and (b) through Arts. 368(4) and 368(5) sought to make constitutional amendments immune from judicial review.

DecisionSC struck down Arts. 368(4) and 368(5) (which barred courts from questioning amendments) as destroying the Basic Structure. Also struck down the expanded Art. 31C. Held that harmony and balance between FRs and DPSPs is itself part of the Basic Structure. The limited amending power of Parliament is also Basic Structure.

Constitutional Impact: Confirmed that Parliament cannot by amendment remove the power of judicial review — that would destroy the Basic Structure. Identified two new elements of Basic Structure: (1) harmony between FRs and DPSPs, and (2) the limited nature of Parliament's amending power. Effectively shut down the Emergency-era project of making Parliament constitutionally omnipotent.

SP Gupta v. Union of India (First Judges Case)

1981 · Supreme Court · 7-judge bench

Constitutional IssueMeaning of "consultation" with CJI under Arts. 124 and 217 for appointment of judges. Whether the government needs to follow the CJI's recommendation. Locus standi of lawyers to challenge non-appointment of judges.

Decision"Consultation" with CJI does NOT mean "concurrence" — the government (executive) has primacy in judicial appointments. CJI's opinion is not binding. Also expansively recognised PIL (Public Interest Litigation) — any public-spirited person can approach court on behalf of those who cannot. Recognised "epistolary jurisdiction" (letters to court treated as PILs).

Constitutional Impact: Established executive primacy in judicial appointments — a position that was reversed by the Second Judges case (1993). The PIL/locus standi aspects have had an enormous democratising effect on access to justice. Later overruled on the judges appointment question by Supreme Court Advocates on Record v. UoI (1993).

3. Cases 11–15: Collegium, Federalism, Reservation & Workplace Rights (1992–2007)

Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India (Second Judges Case)

1993 · Supreme Court · 9-judge bench

Constitutional IssueRevisiting the First Judges Case (SP Gupta 1981): What does "consultation" with CJI mean in Arts. 124(2) and 217(1) for appointment of SC and HC judges? Who has primacy?

Decision"Consultation" with CJI means effective consultation amounting to "concurrence." Collegium system established: CJI must consult the two senior-most SC judges before recommending appointments. CJI's opinion (as the Collegium) has primacy over executive. Overruled SP Gupta on this point.

Constitutional Impact: Established the Collegium system of judicial appointments — one of the most consequential institutional innovations in Indian constitutional history. Made judicial independence a practical reality by removing executive primacy. Later reinforced by the Third Judges Case (1998, Presidential Reference) which expanded the Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges. The Collegium was again upheld in the NJAC case (2015).

SR Bommai v. Union of India

1994 · Supreme Court · 9-judge bench

Constitutional IssueConstitutional validity of Art. 356 (President's Rule). Can the President's proclamation under Art. 356 be challenged in court? Can a government be dismissed without a floor test? Is secularism part of the Basic Structure?

DecisionArt. 356 is justiciable — courts CAN review the President's proclamation. The majority of a state government must be tested on the floor of the House, not by Governor's subjective assessment. Secularism is a Basic Structure of the Constitution. Any state government that acts against the secular character can be dismissed under Art. 356.

Constitutional Impact: Drastically curtailed the misuse of Art. 356 — which had been used over 100 times before 1994 to dismiss state governments for partisan reasons. Federalism strengthened: governors cannot dismiss elected governments without a floor test. Secularism = Basic Structure is a frequently tested fact. The judgment has made President's Rule a rarely used and constitutionally constrained power.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal Case)

1992 (decided) · Supreme Court · 9-judge bench

Constitutional IssueConstitutional validity of the Mandal Commission report implementing 27% reservation for OBCs in central government jobs. Whether the 50% ceiling on reservation exists. Whether creamy layer applies to OBC reservations. Whether reservations can be made in promotions.

Decision(1) 50% ceiling on total reservations (except in extraordinary circumstances like far-flung areas). (2) Creamy layer must be excluded from OBC reservation — the truly backward among OBCs should benefit. (3) No reservation in promotions (this was later amended by the 77th Amendment adding Art. 16(4A)). (4) Economic criterion alone is not sufficient for reservation. (5) Separate lists for different OBC groups.

Constitutional Impact: The most comprehensive judgment on reservations. The 50% ceiling and creamy layer exclusion continue to govern reservation jurisprudence. The no-reservation-in-promotions ruling was circumvented by the 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Amendments. The case also established that backwardness must be social and educational, not merely economic (relevant to EWS 103rd Amendment debate).

Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan

1997 · Supreme Court · 3-judge bench

Constitutional IssueBhanwari Devi, a government worker, was gang-raped while trying to prevent a child marriage. The case raised the question: Is sexual harassment at the workplace a violation of Fundamental Rights (Arts. 14, 19, 21)? What are employer obligations?

DecisionSexual harassment at the workplace violates Arts. 14, 19(1)(g), and 21. SC issued Vishakha Guidelines — binding guidelines treating sexual harassment as a form of discrimination: employers must prohibit it, establish complaints committees, create awareness, and provide a mechanism for redress. International law (CEDAW) incorporated into domestic law.

Constitutional Impact: Filled a legislative vacuum using the court's power under Art. 32. Demonstrated SC's willingness to use international conventions (CEDAW) to expand fundamental rights. The guidelines remained in force for 16 years until Parliament finally enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). UPSC trap: the judgment was 1997, the Act was 2013.

IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu

2007 · Supreme Court · 9-judge bench

Constitutional IssueWhether laws placed in the 9th Schedule (which were meant to be immune from judicial review under Art. 31B) can be challenged if they violate Fundamental Rights. Does Art. 31B provide absolute immunity to 9th Schedule laws?

DecisionLaws inserted in the 9th Schedule after 24 April 1973 (date of Kesavananda Bharati judgment) can be challenged on the ground that they violate the Basic Structure — including if they abridge/abrogate FRs under Arts. 14, 19, 21, and 32. Art. 31B does NOT provide absolute immunity. Judicial review is itself a Basic Structure element.

Constitutional Impact: Established that the 9th Schedule is not an impenetrable safe harbour for legislation. Post-Kesavananda laws in the 9th Schedule can be reviewed for Basic Structure violations. Strengthened judicial review. Settled a long-standing controversy about whether Parliament could immunise any law from challenge by placing it in the 9th Schedule.

4. Cases 16–20: NJAC, Privacy, Identity & Electoral Democracy (2015–2024)

Supreme Court Advocates on Record v. Union of India (NJAC Case / Fourth Judges Case)

2015 · Supreme Court · 5-judge Constitution bench (4:1 majority)

Constitutional IssueValidity of the 99th Constitutional Amendment (2014) which replaced the Collegium system with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The NJAC comprised CJI + 2 senior SC judges + Union Law Minister + 2 eminent persons. Does this violate judicial independence?

Decision4:1 — SC struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act as unconstitutional. Independence of the judiciary = Basic Structure. Including the Law Minister and "eminent persons" (who could be politically aligned) compromised judicial independence. Justice Chelameswar J dissented — argued Collegium is opaque and NJAC should have been retained with modifications.

Constitutional Impact: Collegium system restored. The case reignited debate about transparency and accountability in judicial appointments — the very critique Justice Chelameswar's dissent captured. Independence of judiciary was confirmed as Basic Structure. The controversy over Collegium opacity continues to the present day. The 99th Amendment is among the very few constitutional amendments to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Privacy Case)

2017 · Supreme Court · 9-judge bench (unanimous)

Constitutional IssueDoes the Constitution guarantee a Fundamental Right to Privacy? The case arose from a challenge to Aadhaar's mandatory use. The government argued that privacy is not a fundamental right (relying on M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962)).

DecisionUnanimous 9-judge bench: Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right under Art. 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and pervades the entire Part III. Overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh on this point. Privacy includes: bodily integrity, personal autonomy, informational privacy, privacy of communication, right to sexual orientation. Also effectively overruled ADM Jabalpur — Art. 21 cannot be suspended even during Emergency.

Constitutional Impact: Landmark in the digital age — privacy protection extends to government data collection, surveillance, and profiling. Laid the groundwork for the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023. Overruled ADM Jabalpur's most damaging holding. The case has been cited in subsequent judgments on Aadhaar (partially upheld in 2018), Section 377 (Navtej 2018), and same-sex marriage (2023). Right to privacy includes the right to be left alone — a concept with far-reaching implications.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India

2018 · Supreme Court · 5-judge Constitution bench (unanimous)

Constitutional IssueWhether Section 377 IPC (unnatural offences — criminalising consensual same-sex relations between adults) violates Arts. 14, 15, 19, and 21. The earlier Suresh Kumar Koushal (2013) decision had reversed the Delhi HC's decriminalisation.

DecisionSection 377 partially decriminalised — consensual sexual relations between adults in private are no longer criminal. SC overruled Suresh Kumar Koushal. Constitutional morality must prevail over social morality. LGBTQ+ persons have the same fundamental rights. Dignity, identity, and autonomy under Art. 21. Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation violates Art. 15.

Constitutional Impact: A watershed moment for rights jurisprudence. Constitutional morality over social morality is a key doctrinal development. Built on Puttaswamy's right to privacy and autonomy. Directed NALSA (National Legal Services Authority) to address concerns of the transgender community. Note: The same-sex marriage case (Supriyo v. UoI, 2023) declined to create a right to marry for same-sex couples, referring it to Parliament — but Navtej's decriminalisation stands.

Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds Case)

2024 · Supreme Court · 5-judge Constitution bench (unanimous)

Constitutional IssueConstitutional validity of the Electoral Bonds Scheme (2018) which allowed anonymous purchase of bonds to donate to political parties. Whether it violates voters' right to information (Art. 19(1)(a)) and promotes quid pro quo corruption.

DecisionElectoral Bonds scheme struck down as unconstitutional. Violates Art. 19(1)(a) — voters have a right to know about political funding. The scheme enabled anonymous donations without disclosure, facilitating quid pro quo (the "most dangerous form of political corruption"). SC directed SBI (issuer) to stop issuing bonds and disclose all data to the Election Commission.

Constitutional Impact: Established that the right to information about political funding is part of Art. 19(1)(a). The government's claim of donor privacy was rejected — political donations are a matter of public interest. SBI complied; EC published the data. Case has reignited calls for state funding of elections and comprehensive electoral finance reform. Among the most significant democratic governance cases of the decade.

Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2024 · Supreme Court · 7-judge bench (6:1 majority)

Constitutional IssueWhether states can create sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes for the purpose of reservations (i.e., giving preference to more backward SCs within the SC list). EV Chinnaiah (2004) had held that SCs are a homogeneous class and cannot be sub-classified.

DecisionStates CAN sub-classify within SCs for reservation purposes to give preference to the most backward among SCs. Overruled EV Chinnaiah (2004). SC is not a homogeneous class — there are degrees of backwardness within SCs. The question of creamy layer within SCs was referred to a larger bench.

Constitutional Impact: Major shift in reservation jurisprudence — allows states like Punjab (Balmikis/Mazhabi Sikhs preference), Andhra Pradesh, Telangana etc. to implement sub-classification policies. Opens the door for more targeted reservation to reach the most marginalised. The creamy layer reference could further transform SC reservation in future. Overruling EV Chinnaiah is a significant doctrinal development.

5. Cases 21–22: Art. 370 & Delhi Services (2023)

In Re: Article 370 — Petitions challenging Abrogation of Art. 370

2023 · Supreme Court · 5-judge Constitution bench (unanimous)

Constitutional IssueValidity of the Presidential Orders (August 2019) that abrogated Art. 370 (special status of J&K) and reorganised J&K into two Union Territories. Whether Art. 370 had become permanent. Whether the President could act through Parliament as the Constituent Assembly of J&K.

DecisionArt. 370 abrogation upheld. Art. 370 was always a temporary provision — not permanent. The President's use of the constitutional mechanism (Parliament acting as the Constituent Assembly) was valid. However, SC directed the Central Government to hold elections in J&K by September 2024 and restore statehood at the "earliest."

Constitutional Impact: Settled a major constitutional controversy. The court held that the integration of J&K with India was complete and Art. 370 was transitional. Statehood restoration was directed — J&K remains a UT as of mid-2024 but elections were held in September 2024 (first assembly elections since 2014). The case is significant for federal relations and the interpretation of "temporary provisions" in the Constitution.

Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (Delhi Services Case)

2023 · Supreme Court · 5-judge Constitution bench (3:2 majority)

Constitutional IssueControl over "Services" (IAS and other civil servants posted in Delhi) — does the elected Delhi government (GNCTD) or the Lieutenant Governor (Centre) control transfers, postings, and disciplinary matters of civil servants in Delhi?

Decision3:2 majority: Delhi government (elected legislature) has control over services (except for matters relating to police, public order, and land which remain with Centre). The LG acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in Delhi on services. Democratic accountability requires that the elected government controls the bureaucracy that implements its policies.

Constitutional Impact: Major victory for the principle of representative government and cooperative federalism. However, Parliament responded swiftly with the GNCTD Amendment Act 2023 (within weeks of the judgment) which gave the Centre control over services in Delhi — effectively overriding the SC's ruling through legislation. This legislative response has itself been challenged and raises questions about Parliament's power to circumvent SC orders through ordinary legislation.

6. Summary Table — All 22 Cases

#	Year	Case	Issue	Outcome (one line)
1	1951	Shankari Prasad	FRs amendable?	Yes — constitutional amendment not "law" under Art.13
2	1951	Champakam Dorairajan	Caste-based education seats	Struck down; led to 1st Amendment adding Art.15(4)
3	1964	Sajjan Singh	Confirmed Shankari Prasad	FRs amendable; first dissents questioning unlimited amending power
4	1967	Golaknath	FRs cannot be amended	FRs immutable; prospective overruling applied; overruled Shankari Prasad
5	1973	Kesavananda Bharati	Basic Structure doctrine	Parliament can amend Constitution but NOT destroy its Basic Structure
6	1975	Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain	Art.329A immunising PM's election	Art.329A struck down; free and fair elections = Basic Structure
7	1976	ADM Jabalpur	Art.21 during Emergency	Majority: Art.21 suspended; Khanna J dissented; later overruled
8	1978	Maneka Gandhi	Art.21 — "procedure" meaning	Procedure must be fair, just, reasonable; Arts 14, 19, 21 = golden triangle
9	1980	Minerva Mills	42nd Amendment validity	FRs-DPSPs harmony = Basic Structure; limited amending power = Basic Structure
10	1981	SP Gupta (1st Judges)	Judicial appointments primacy	Executive primacy; PIL/epistolary jurisdiction expanded
11	1993	SCAORA (2nd Judges)	Collegium system	Collegium established; consultation = concurrence; CJI has primacy
12	1994	SR Bommai	Art.356 justiciability	Art.356 justiciable; floor test required; secularism = Basic Structure
13	1992	Indra Sawhney (Mandal)	OBC reservation validity	50% ceiling; creamy layer; no reservation in promotions
14	1997	Vishakha	Sexual harassment at workplace	Vishakha Guidelines issued; employer duty; led to POSH Act 2013
15	2007	IR Coelho	9th Schedule immunity	Post-1973 9th Schedule laws reviewable for Basic Structure violations
16	2015	NJAC Case (4th Judges)	99th Amendment validity	NJAC struck down 4:1; Collegium restored; judicial independence = Basic Structure
17	2017	KS Puttaswamy	Right to Privacy	Privacy = FR under Art.21; overruled ADM Jabalpur; led to DPDP Act 2023
18	2018	Navtej Singh Johar	Section 377 IPC	Consensual same-sex acts decriminalised; constitutional morality over social morality
19	2024	Electoral Bonds (ADR)	Electoral Bonds scheme	Scheme unconstitutional; Art.19(1)(a) right to know political funding
20	2024	Davinder Singh	SC sub-classification	States can sub-classify within SCs; overruled EV Chinnaiah 2004
21	2023	In Re: Art.370	J&K special status abrogation	Abrogation upheld; Art.370 was temporary; elections directed
22	2023	NCT Delhi v. UoI (Services)	Services under Delhi govt	3:2: Delhi govt controls services; Centre overrode by GNCTD Amendment Act 2023

7. Diagram A — Basic Structure Evolution Timeline

Fig 37.1 — Basic Structure doctrine: key milestones from Shankari Prasad (1951) to Davinder Singh (2024)

8. Diagram B — Expansion of Art. 21: Right to Life & Personal Liberty

Fig 37.2 — Art. 21 expanded by the Supreme Court to encompass privacy, livelihood, education, health, dignity, fair trial, and reputation.

9. Diagram C — Top 10 Cases Quick Reference

Fig 37.3 — Top 10 landmark cases quick reference: year, name, and key constitutional holding.

10. Prelims PYQs (2017–2025)

Prelims 2018

The Kesavananda Bharati case is associated with which of the following?
(a) Basic Structure doctrine (b) Right to Privacy (c) Anti-defection (d) Secularism
Answer: (a) Basic Structure doctrine — decided in 1973 by a 13-judge bench; it held that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its Basic Structure.

Prelims 2022

With reference to the Basic Structure of the Constitution of India, which one of the following is NOT considered part of the Basic Structure?
Answer: The concept of the 'Basic Structure' includes supremacy of Constitution, judicial review, rule of law, secularism, democracy, free and fair elections, and separation of powers. Specific provisions like the size of the Council of Ministers (91st Amendment) are NOT basic structure elements. Note: Any element of Basic Structure is frequently presented in option form — know what IS and IS NOT included.

Prelims 2019

Which of the following statements about the SR Bommai case (1994) is correct?
(1) Secularism is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. (2) The President's proclamation under Art.356 is not justiciable. (3) Majority of a state government must be tested in the Assembly, not by Governor's assessment.
Answer: (1) and (3) only — Statement (2) is wrong. Art.356 IS justiciable per SR Bommai; the Supreme Court can review the President's proclamation.

Prelims 2020

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that Arts. 14, 19, and 21 form a "golden triangle." What does this mean?
Answer: Any law depriving a person of personal liberty under Art.21 must also satisfy Arts. 14 (equality) and 19 (freedom). The procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable — not arbitrary. The three articles are not mutually exclusive but inter-connected. This overruled A.K. Gopalan (1950).

Prelims 2021

With reference to KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), consider the following statements: (1) It was decided by a 9-judge bench unanimously. (2) It held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Art.21. (3) It expressly overruled ADM Jabalpur. Which of the above is/are correct?
Answer: All three — (1) unanimous 9-judge bench, (2) privacy = FR under Art.21, (3) ADM Jabalpur effectively overruled on the question that Art.21 cannot be suspended even during Emergency.

Prelims 2017

The Vishakha guidelines (1997) relate to:
(a) Right to Information (b) Sexual harassment at the workplace (c) Child labour (d) Reservation in promotions
Answer: (b) Sexual harassment at the workplace. The POSH Act 2013 was passed 16 years later. The guidelines were binding on employers as they were issued under Art.32.

Prelims 2023

Which of the following correctly describes the outcome of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)?
Answer: Section 377 IPC was partially decriminalised — consensual same-sex sexual relations between adults in private are no longer criminal. The SC applied the principle of constitutional morality over social morality. Dignity and identity are protected under Art.21. The earlier Suresh Kumar Koushal (2013) decision was overruled.

Prelims 2024

With reference to the NJAC judgment (2015), which of the following is correct?
(1) The 99th Constitutional Amendment was struck down. (2) The NJAC included the Union Law Minister and two eminent persons. (3) All five judges held that the Collegium should be restored.
Answer: (1) and (2) only — Statement (3) is wrong. It was a 4:1 majority decision. Justice Chelameswar J dissented and favoured retaining the NJAC with modifications, criticising the Collegium's opacity.

Prelims 2025

The Supreme Court's judgment in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024) held that the Electoral Bonds Scheme violated which Fundamental Right?
Answer: Art. 19(1)(a) — Freedom of Speech and Expression, which includes the right of voters to receive information about political funding and party finances. The anonymous nature of bonds prevented voters from knowing who funded which party, enabling quid pro quo corruption.

11. Mains PYQs (GS-II, Real Questions)

Mains GS-II 2019

"The Basic Structure doctrine has become the cornerstone of Indian constitutionalism. Critically examine its evolution and scope." (250 words)

Approach: Start with the Shankari Prasad → Golaknath → Kesavananda Bharati evolution. Define Basic Structure — uncodified list; SC determines on a case-to-case basis. Key elements: supremacy of Constitution, rule of law, judicial review, democracy, secularism, separation of powers, federalism, free and fair elections. Applications: Indira Gandhi case (Art.329A struck down), Minerva Mills (FR-DPSP harmony), SR Bommai (secularism), NJAC (judicial independence). Critical examination: tension between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy; unelected judiciary as final arbiter; lack of a definitive list of basic features; expansive use could be seen as judicial overreach. Counter: doctrine has prevented constitutional autarchy; protected democracy during Emergency and after. Conclude: Basic Structure is both a limitation on power and a guarantee of constitutional continuity.

Mains GS-II 2018

"Right to Privacy as a fundamental right — implications for surveillance, Aadhaar and data protection." (250 words)

Approach: Background — ADM Jabalpur negated privacy; MP Sharma and Kharak Singh held privacy not FR; Puttaswamy 2017 (9-judge bench, unanimous) reversed this. Content of privacy: bodily integrity, personal autonomy, informational privacy, privacy of communication, sexual orientation. Implications: (a) Surveillance — state surveillance must be proportionate, necessary, and backed by law (Pegasus controversy); (b) Aadhaar — SC in 2018 partially upheld Aadhaar but struck down private sector use; mandatory linking to bank accounts/mobile numbers curtailed; (c) Data Protection — Puttaswamy directly led to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 — note its provisions on consent, data fiduciaries, data principals, exemptions. Critical angle: broad exemptions for State surveillance in DPDP Act 2023 may not fully satisfy the proportionality test of Puttaswamy. Way forward: independent data protection authority, clearer surveillance law.

Mains GS-II 2020

"SR Bommai judgment has significantly strengthened India's federal framework. Discuss." (250 words)

Approach: Pre-Bommai scenario — Art.356 misused over 100 times; Sarkaria Commission (1988) had recommended restraint but recommendations not binding. Bommai 1994: 9-judge bench; Art.356 justiciable; floor test mandatory; no dismissal without test in Assembly; President's proclamation subject to judicial review; if court sets aside proclamation, dismissed govt is restored. Secularism = BS — states acting against secularism can be dismissed under Art.356 (double-edged sword). Impact: reduction in misuse; greater security for elected state governments; Centre-state relations improved; governors more constrained. Limitations: governors still can delay/manipulate floor test timing; Art.356 has not disappeared (used in Uttarakhand 2016, Arunachal Pradesh 2016 — both struck down by HC/SC subsequently, proving Bommai's effectiveness). Conclude: Bommai is the most important case for cooperative federalism.

Mains GS-II 2022

"Examine the evolution of the Collegium system for judicial appointments. Does it adequately balance independence and accountability?" (250 words)

Approach: Evolution — SP Gupta 1981 (executive primacy); SCAORA 1993 (Collegium: CJI + 2 senior judges; consultation = concurrence); Third Judges Case 1998 (CJI + 4 senior SC judges); NJAC 2015 (99th Amendment struck down; Collegium restored). Rationale for Collegium: independence of judiciary = BS; executive control would threaten impartiality; judges know judges best. Critique: opaque process — no written criteria; no transparency; allegations of nepotism and favouritism; Justice Chelameswar's dissent in NJAC; SC and Centre at loggerheads on appointments (2022–23 collegium vs government controversy). Accountability gaps: no mechanism to question or appeal collegium decisions; Parliament has no role; civil society excluded; diversity (women, minorities) poor. Way forward: Memorandum of Procedure reform; transparency in deliberations; structured criteria for appointment; diversity targets; accountability mechanism for collegium decisions. Conclusion: Independence is protected but accountability remains the unresolved challenge.

Mains GS-II 2024

"Electoral Bonds were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2024. Analyse the judgment and suggest alternative mechanisms for transparent electoral financing." (250 words)

Approach: Background — Electoral Bonds Scheme 2018: bearer bonds purchased from SBI in specified denominations; redeemed by registered political parties; donor identity not disclosed. SC judgment (Feb 2024, 5-judge bench, unanimous): violates Art.19(1)(a) — voters have right to information about political funding; anonymous donation enables quid pro quo corruption (the most dangerous form); disproportionately benefited ruling party; SBI directed to disclose all bond purchase and redemption data to ECI. Impact: SBI disclosed data; pattern of donations from companies under ED/CBI investigation to ruling parties emerged, raising accountability questions. Alternatives: (1) State funding of elections — full or partial public financing based on vote share; (2) Electoral trust model (pre-existing) with full disclosure; (3) Small donor matching programs; (4) Mandatory real-time disclosure of donations above threshold; (5) Strengthening FCRA limits on foreign funding; (6) ECI empowered to audit party accounts. Constitutional angle: Art.324 (ECI powers) can be used to mandate disclosure. Conclusion: Transparent electoral finance requires both judicial protection of Art.19(1)(a) and a comprehensive legislative framework.

12. Revision Box — UPSC Traps & Must-Remember Points

4 Critical UPSC Traps — Landmark Judgements

Trap 1: Kesavananda (1973) and Golaknath (1967)
Kesavananda overruled Golaknath specifically on the question of prospective overruling — Golaknath had applied its ruling only to future amendments; Kesavananda rejected this technique. However, Kesavananda agreed with Golaknath's underlying spirit that some elements of the Constitution have a special status — it channelled this into the Basic Structure doctrine. Do NOT say Kesavananda upheld Golaknath entirely.

Trap 2: ADM Jabalpur (1976) and its overruling
ADM Jabalpur was NOT overruled by the 44th Amendment alone. The 44th Amendment (1978) made Arts. 20 and 21 non-suspendable during Emergency — but the ADM Jabalpur ratio was expressly overruled by the KS Puttaswamy judgment (2017) which held that Art. 21 is inviolable even during Emergency. Many candidates confuse these two events.

Trap 3: Vishakha (1997) vs POSH Act (2013)
The Vishakha guidelines were issued in 1997. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act — POSH Act — was enacted in 2013. The gap is 16 years. Many candidates conflate the two or get the years wrong. The SC issued guidelines to fill the legislative vacuum until Parliament acted.

Trap 4: SR Bommai — Secularism IS Basic Structure
SR Bommai (1994) settled that secularism is part of the Basic Structure. This means (a) it cannot be removed by constitutional amendment and (b) a state government actively flouting secularism can be dismissed under Art.356. Candidates sometimes confuse the source — secularism as BS was confirmed in SR Bommai, not directly in Kesavananda (though implied). SR Bommai also confirmed that Art.356 is justiciable — do not say it is non-justiciable.

Quick Memory Table — Key Firsts:

First/Only	Case	Year
First Basic Structure case	Kesavananda Bharati	1973
First application of BS to strike down amendment	Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain	1975
Collegium established	SCAORA (2nd Judges Case)	1993
Constitutional amendment struck down for BS violation	99th Amendment — NJAC Case	2015
Right to Privacy = FR (9-judge unanimous)	KS Puttaswamy	2017
POSH Act — Vishakha guidelines in legislation	Parliament Act (16 yrs after Vishakha)	2013
SC sub-classification within SCs allowed	Davinder Singh (overruled EV Chinnaiah)	2024
Electoral Bonds struck down	ADR v. UoI	2024

Basic Structure — Elements (not exhaustive list): Supremacy of the Constitution · Republican and democratic form of government · Secular character · Separation of powers · Federal character · Sovereignty and unity of India · Free and fair elections · Judicial review · Rule of law · Harmony between FRs and DPSPs (Minerva Mills) · Independence of judiciary (NJAC 2015) · Parliamentary system · Art. 32 (right to constitutional remedies — Ambedkar: heart and soul of Constitution) · Limited amending power of Parliament

Constitutional Impact Timeline (Clusters)

Basic Structure Cases

1973 — Kesavananda: Doctrine born
1975 — Indira Gandhi: Free elections = BS
1980 — Minerva Mills: FR-DPSP harmony = BS
1994 — SR Bommai: Secularism = BS
2007 — IR Coelho: 9th Schedule not immune
2015 — NJAC: Judicial independence = BS

Rights Expansion (Art.21)

1978 — Maneka Gandhi: Golden triangle
1979 — Hussainara: Right to speedy trial
1985 — Olga Tellis: Right to livelihood
1993 — Unnikrishnan: Right to education
1997 — Vishakha: Workplace dignity
2017 — Puttaswamy: Right to privacy
2018 — Navtej: Dignity, identity

Democracy & Governance

1981 — SP Gupta: PIL expanded
1992 — Indra Sawhney: 50% ceiling
1993 — 2nd Judges: Collegium born
1994 — SR Bommai: Art.356 reined in
2024 — Electoral Bonds: Transparency
2024 — Davinder Singh: SC sub-classification

Item	Detail
Largest bench	13 judges — Kesavananda 1973
Basic Structure coined	1973 — Kesavananda Bharati
Collegium established	1993 — SCAORA (2nd Judges)
ADM Jabalpur overruled	2017 — KS Puttaswamy
99th Amendment struck	2015 — NJAC case (4:1)
Vishakha → POSH Act	1997 → 2013 (16 years)
Electoral Bonds struck	2024 — ADR v. UoI (5:0)
EV Chinnaiah overruled	2024 — Davinder Singh (6:1)
Khanna J dissent	ADM Jabalpur 1976 — right to life inviolable
Secularism = BS	SR Bommai 1994

Landmark Judgements That Transformed India

On this page

Conceptual Clarity — Why Landmark Judgements Matter for UPSC

1. Cases 1–5: Amendability of Fundamental Rights (1951–1973)

2. Cases 6–10: Emergency, Rights Expansion & Minerva Mills (1975–1980)

3. Cases 11–15: Collegium, Federalism, Reservation & Workplace Rights (1992–2007)

4. Cases 16–20: NJAC, Privacy, Identity & Electoral Democracy (2015–2024)

5. Cases 21–22: Art. 370 & Delhi Services (2023)

6. Summary Table — All 22 Cases

7. Diagram A — Basic Structure Evolution Timeline

8. Diagram B — Expansion of Art. 21: Right to Life & Personal Liberty

9. Diagram C — Top 10 Cases Quick Reference

10. Prelims PYQs (2017–2025)

11. Mains PYQs (GS-II, Real Questions)

12. Revision Box — UPSC Traps & Must-Remember Points

4 Critical UPSC Traps — Landmark Judgements

Constitutional Impact Timeline (Clusters)

Basic Structure Cases

Rights Expansion (Art.21)

Democracy & Governance