Landmark Supreme Court cases
A few judgments are cited again and again because each answered a big constitutional question. Learn who, when and which question.
What the paper can ask
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala was decided on 24 April 1973 by 13 judges, the largest bench the Supreme Court has sat in, by a 7 to 6 majority.
- Minerva Mills was decided on 31 July 1980 by five judges, with Y. V. Chandrachud as Chief Justice.
- S. R. Bommai was decided on 11 March 1994 by nine judges.
- Shreya Singhal was decided on 24 March 2015 by a bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and R. F. Nariman.
- State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan was decided in 1951, early in the life of the Constitution, and arose from a Madras Government Order on seats in colleges.
Why exams ask
Setters give a holding, a section or a consequence and ask which case it belongs to, or give the case and ask the year or bench.
The full story
Some Supreme Court cases are named in exams by party and year. Each one faced a big question: how far Parliament can change the Constitution, what the Centre may do to a state government, how far online speech is free, or how rights and policy goals fit together. Know the year, the bench and the question for each, then match them.
Test yourself
1.Consider the following statements about the Preamble: 1. The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) held that the Preamble is part of the Constitution. 2. The Preamble has been amended only once, by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. Which of the statements is/are correct?
Correct. In Berubari (1960) the Court said the Preamble was not part of the Constitution; Kesavananda Bharati (1973) reversed this. The only amendment to the Preamble is the 42nd of 1976.
Not quite. In Berubari (1960) the Court said the Preamble was not part of the Constitution; Kesavananda Bharati (1973) reversed this. The only amendment to the Preamble is the 42nd of 1976. It goes into your error book.
2.The 'basic structure' doctrine, under which Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to destroy its essential features, was laid down in which case?
Correct. A 13-judge bench in Kesavananda Bharati (24 April 1973) held by 7:6 that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure.
Not quite. A 13-judge bench in Kesavananda Bharati (24 April 1973) held by 7:6 that Parliament may amend any part of the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure. It goes into your error book.
3.In which case did the Supreme Court hold that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights, a position later reversed by the 24th Amendment and Kesavananda Bharati?
Correct. In I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) an 11-judge bench held 6:5 that Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged by constitutional amendment; Parliament answered with the 24th Amendment, 1971.
Not quite. In I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) an 11-judge bench held 6:5 that Fundamental Rights cannot be abridged by constitutional amendment; Parliament answered with the 24th Amendment, 1971. It goes into your error book.