The judgements the exam keeps asking about.
35 landmark Supreme Court decisions, grouped by theme. Each one tells you what the Court held and why it matters for your answer — not a case summary you have to condense yourself.
Every judgement, by theme
Shankari Prasad v Union of India 1951
Held: Upheld the First Amendment and held that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 extended to Fundamental Rights.
Why it matters: The starting point of the amendability debate that runs through Golaknath and Kesavananda.
Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan 1965
Held: Reaffirmed Shankari Prasad: Fundamental Rights could be amended under Article 368.
Why it matters: Shows the Court's position before it reversed course in Golaknath.
Golaknath v State of Punjab 1967
Held: Reversed the earlier view and held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights.
Why it matters: Triggered the 24th Amendment, which in turn led to Kesavananda.
Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala 1973
Held: Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot damage or destroy its basic structure.
Why it matters: The single most important constitutional case. The basic structure doctrine is asked about in some form almost every cycle.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain 1975
Held: Struck down a clause placing the Prime Minister's election dispute beyond judicial scrutiny, applying the basic structure doctrine.
Why it matters: First major application of basic structure to invalidate an amendment; free and fair elections treated as part of it.
Minerva Mills v Union of India 1980
Held: Struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment; held that judicial review and limited amending power are part of the basic structure.
Why it matters: Establishes that Parliament cannot give itself unlimited amending power.
Waman Rao v Union of India 1981
Held: Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 (the date of Kesavananda) are open to basic structure review.
Why it matters: Explains why the Ninth Schedule is not an absolute shield.
I.R. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu 2007
Held: Confirmed that Ninth Schedule laws are subject to the basic structure test, reinforcing Waman Rao.
Why it matters: The modern authority on Ninth Schedule immunity.
A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras 1950
Held: Read Articles 19, 21 and 22 as separate compartments, giving Article 21 a narrow scope.
Why it matters: The restrictive starting point that Maneka Gandhi later overturned.
ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla 1976
Held: Held during the Emergency that the right to move courts for enforcement of Article 21 stood suspended.
Why it matters: Widely criticised and effectively repudiated later, notably in Puttaswamy. A standard example of judicial deference in a crisis.
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India 1978
Held: Read Articles 14, 19 and 21 together and held that any procedure depriving liberty must be fair, just and reasonable.
Why it matters: The gateway case for almost every later expansion of Article 21.
Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985
Held: Held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21.
Why it matters: Frequently cited on urban poverty, eviction and welfare questions.
K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India 2017
Held: Recognised privacy as a fundamental right intrinsic to life and liberty under Article 21.
Why it matters: Underpins debates on Aadhaar, data protection and surveillance.
Common Cause v Union of India 2018
Held: Recognised the right to die with dignity, permitting passive euthanasia and advance directives (living wills).
Why it matters: Useful for ethics and GS2 questions on autonomy and end-of-life care.
State of Madras v Champakam Dorairajan 1951
Held: Struck down caste-based reservation in educational admissions as violating Article 15.
Why it matters: Directly caused the First Amendment, which added Article 15(4).
M.R. Balaji v State of Mysore 1963
Held: Indicated that reservation should ordinarily not exceed 50 per cent.
Why it matters: Origin of the 50 per cent ceiling later crystallised in Indra Sawhney.
Indra Sawhney v Union of India 1992
Held: Upheld 27 per cent OBC reservation, capped total reservation at 50 per cent, and introduced the creamy layer exclusion.
Why it matters: The core authority on reservation limits; essential for any reservation question.
Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India 2022
Held: Upheld the 103rd Amendment providing 10 per cent reservation for economically weaker sections.
Why it matters: The most recent major reservation ruling; note the debate on breaching the 50 per cent ceiling.
S.R. Bommai v Union of India 1994
Held: Laid down limits on Article 356: the President's satisfaction is judicially reviewable and a floor test is the proper way to establish majority.
Why it matters: The standard authority whenever President's Rule or a Governor's role is in the news.
Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu 1992
Held: Upheld the anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule) and held the Speaker's decision on disqualification is subject to judicial review.
Why it matters: Relevant to every defection controversy and to questions on the Tenth Schedule.
Nabam Rebia v Deputy Speaker 2016
Held: Held that the Governor's discretion is limited and cannot be used to summon or advance an Assembly session against ministerial advice.
Why it matters: Modern authority on the constitutional limits of gubernatorial discretion.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India (Second Judges Case) 1993
Held: Established the collegium system, giving the judiciary primacy in appointments and transfers.
Why it matters: Origin of the collegium; pairs with the NJAC case in any judicial-reform answer.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India (NJAC case) 2015
Held: Struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act, holding that judicial primacy in appointments is part of the basic structure.
Why it matters: Central to the ongoing collegium-versus-commission debate.
Berubari Union case 1960
Held: Held that the Preamble is not part of the Constitution, though it can aid interpretation.
Why it matters: Contrast with Kesavananda and the LIC case, which treated the Preamble as part of it.
LIC of India v Consumer Education & Research Centre 1995
Held: Treated the Preamble as part of the Constitution for interpretive purposes.
Why it matters: The pairing with Berubari is a common Prelims trap.
Shreya Singhal v Union of India 2015
Held: Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Why it matters: The leading case on online speech; cite it on internet regulation and free expression.
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum 1985
Held: Held that a divorced Muslim woman was entitled to maintenance under the general criminal law provision.
Why it matters: Led to the 1986 Act and remains central to the uniform civil code debate.
Vishaka v State of Rajasthan 1997
Held: Laid down binding guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace in the absence of legislation.
Why it matters: Precursor to the 2013 POSH Act; a standard example of judicial law-making.
Shayara Bano v Union of India 2017
Held: Held instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) unconstitutional.
Why it matters: Cite on personal law reform and Article 14 in the religious sphere.
Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India 2018
Held: Decriminalised consensual same-sex relations between adults by reading down Section 377.
Why it matters: Key case on dignity, privacy and Article 14; builds directly on Puttaswamy.
Joseph Shine v Union of India 2018
Held: Struck down Section 497 (adultery) as unconstitutional for treating a wife as her husband's property.
Why it matters: Useful on gender equality and the autonomy of married women.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala (Sabarimala) 2018
Held: Held that excluding women of menstruating age from the Sabarimala temple violated their constitutional rights.
Why it matters: The sharpest recent example of the tension between Articles 25 and 26 and equality rights.
M.C. Mehta v Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak) 1986
Held: Established absolute liability for enterprises engaged in hazardous activity, going beyond strict liability.
Why it matters: The foundation of Indian environmental liability; contrast with Rylands v Fletcher.
Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar 1991
Held: Held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to pollution-free water and air.
Why it matters: The standard citation for environmental rights under Article 21.
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India 1996
Held: Adopted the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle as part of Indian environmental law.
Why it matters: Cite whenever sustainable development principles are asked about.
Compiled for revision. Always cross-check a case against a standard reference before quoting it in an answer — and read the full judgement for any topic you expect to write on at length.
Polity, properly organised
BharatSamvidhan takes these cases further — article by article, tagged to where each one is actually asked, with self-tests as you go.
See BharatSamvidhan →