25 Most Important Supreme Court Judgments

Case Relevance

A.K. Gopalan Case SC contented that there was no violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined in
(1950) Articles 13, 19, 21 and 22 under the provisions of the Preventive Detention
Act, if the detention was as per the procedure established by law. Here, the SC
took a narrow view of Article 21.

Shankari Prasad This case dealt with the amendability of Fundamental Rights (the First
Case (1951) Amendment’s validity was challenged). The SC contended that the
Parliament’s power to amend under Article 368 also includes the power to
amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.

Berubari Union case This case was regarding the Parliament’s power to transfer the territory of
(1960) Berubai to Pakistan. The Supreme Court examined Article 3 in detail and held
that the Parliament cannot make laws under this article in order to execute the
Nehru-Noon agreement. Hence, the 9th Amendment Act was passed to
enforce the agreement.

Golaknath case The questions in this case were whether amendment is a law; and whether
(1967) Fundamental Rights can be amended or not. SC contented that Fundamental
Rights are not amenable to the Parliamentary restriction as stated in Article 13,
and that to amend the Fundamental rights a new Constituent Assembly would
be required. Also stated that Article 368 gives the procedure to amend the
Constitution but does not confer on Parliament the power to amend the
Constitution.

Kesavananda Bharati This judgement defined the basic structure of the Constitution. The SC held
case (1973) that although no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was
beyond the Parliament’s amending power, the “basic structure of the
Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.”
This is the basis in Indian law in which the judiciary can strike down any
amendment passed by Parliament that is in conflict with the basic structure of
the Constitution.
Indira Nehru Gandhi The SC applied the theory of basic structure and struck down Clause(4) of
v. Raj Narain case article 329-A, which was inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975 on the
(1975) grounds that it was beyond the Parliament’s amending power as it destroyed
the Constitution’s basic features.

Maneka Gandhi A main issue in this case was whether the right to go abroad is a part of the
case (1978) Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21. The SC held that it is included in
the Right to Personal Liberty. The SC also ruled that the mere existence of an
enabling law was not enough to restrain personal liberty. Such a law must also
be “just, fair and reasonable.”

Minerva Mills case This case again strengthens the Basic Structure doctrine. The judgement struck
(1980) down 2 changes made to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976,
declaring them to be violative of the basic structure. The judgement makes it
clear that the Constitution, and not the Parliament is supreme.

Waman Rao Case The SC again reiterated the Basic Structure doctrine. It also drew a line of
(1981) demarcation as April 24th, 1973 i.e., the date of the Kesavananda Bharati
judgement, and held that it should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the
validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to that
date.

Shah Bano Begum Milestone case for Muslim women’s fight for rights. The SC upheld the right
case (1985) to alimony for a Muslim woman and said that the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 is applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religion. This set off a
political controversy and the government of the day overturned this judgement
by passing the Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce Act), 1986, according
to which alimony need be given only during the iddat period (in tune with the
Muslim personal law).

MC Mehta and Union This case dealt with 3 issues: Scope of Article 32; rule of Absolute Liability or
Of India (1986) Rylands vs Fletcher to be followed; issue of compensation. SC held that its
power under Article 32 is not restricted to preventive measures, but also
remedial measures when rights are violated. It also held that in the case of
industries engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, Absolute
Liability was to be followed. Finally, it also said that the amount of
compensation must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the industry
so that it will be a deterrent.
Indra Sawhney and SC examined the scope and extent of Article 16(4), which provides for the
Union of India (1992) reservation of jobs in favour of backward classes. It upheld the constitutional
validity of 27% reservation for the OBCs with certain conditions (like creamy
layer exclusion, no reservation in promotion, total reserved quota should not
exceed 50%, etc.)

S. R. Bommai case In this judgement, the SC tried to curb the blatant misuse of Article
(1994) 356 (regarding the imposition of President’s Rule on states).

Vishaka and State of This case dealt with sexual harassment at the workplace. In the judgement, the
Rajasthan (1997) SC gave a set of guidelines for employers – as well as other responsible
persons or institutions – to immediately ensure the prevention of sexual
harassment. These are called ‘Vishaka Guidelines’. These were to be
considered law until appropriate legislation was enacted.

Samatha and State of This judgement nullified all mining leases granted by the Andhra Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh State government in the Scheduled areas and asked it to stop all mining
(1997) operations. It declared that forest land, tribal land, and government land in
scheduled areas could not be leased to private companies or non-tribal for
industrial operations. Such activity is only permissible to a government
undertaking and tribal people.

Lily Thomas v Union Here, the SC held that the second marriage of a Hindu man without divorcing
of India (2000) the first wife, even if the man had converted to Islam, is void unless the first
marriage had been dissolved according to the Hindu Marriage Act.

I.R Coelho and State This judgement held that if a law is included in the 9th Schedule of the Indian
of Tamil Nadu 2007 Constitution, it can still be examined and confronted in court. The 9th
Schedule of the Indian Constitution contains a list of acts and laws which
cannot be challenged in a court of law. The Waman Rao ruling ensured that
acts and laws mentioned in the IX schedule till 24 April 1973, shall not be
changed or challenged, but any attempt to amend or add more acts to that
schedule will suffer close inspection and examination by the judiciary system.

Pedophilia case The SC restored the conviction and sentence of 6-year (RI) rigorous
(2011) imprisonment imposed on 2 UK nationals who were acquitted by the Bombay
High Court in a paedophilia case. The court said that “the sexual abuse of
children is one of the most heinous crimes.”
Aruna Shanbaug The SC ruled that individuals had a right to die with dignity, allowing
Case (2011) passive euthanasia with guidelines. The need to reform India’s laws on
euthanasia was triggered by the tragic case of Aruna Shanbaug who lay in a
vegetative state (blind, paralysed and deaf) for 42 years.

NOTA judgement This judgement introduced the NOTA (None-Of-The-Above) option for
(2013) Indian voters.

Lily Thomas and The SC ruled that any MLA, MLC or MP who was found guilty of a crime and
Union Of India (2013) given a minimum of 2 year imprisonment would cease to be a member of the
House with immediate effect.

Nirbhaya Case (2014) Introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and definition of
rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Code of Criminal
Procedures, 1973.

National Legal This case resulted in the recognition of transgender persons as a third gender.
Services Authority The SC also instructed the government to treat them as minorities and expand
and Union of India the reservations in education, jobs, education, etc.
(2014)

Triple Talaq The SC outlawed the backward practice of instant ‘triple talaq’, which
Judgement (2016) permitted Muslim men to unilaterally end their marriages by uttering the word
“talaq” three times without making any provision for maintenance or alimony.
Read about the Triple Talaq Bill, 2019.

Right To Privacy The SC declared the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right protected under
(2017) the Indian Constitution.

Repealing Section 377 The SC ruled that Section 377 was unconstitutional “in so far as it criminalises
(2018) consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex.”

L Chandra Kumar The SC ruled that the power of judicial review vested in the Supreme Court
Case (1997) and High Courts by Articles 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) and 226
respectively is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Puttuswamy Case This SC judgement protects individual rights against the invasion of one’s
(2017) privacy.

Habeas Corpus Case A much-criticised judgement of the SC, in which the majority ruling went
(1976) against individual freedom and seemed to favour the state. Justice Khanna’s
dissent is also well-known.

Romesh Thapar Case Here, the SC held that the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom
(1950) of propagation of ideas that can only be ensured by circulation.
1. In which of the following cases Section 66a of IT act was struck down

A. Shreya singhal vs. union of India

B. Naz foundation vs. NCT Delhi
C. Sneha singhal vs. union of India
D. Lilavati vs. State of Maharashtra

2. In which of the following cases Supreme court gave legal recognition to Third
genders

A. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon V State of Maharashtra

B. Sushil Ansal vs State Thr CBI
C. Novartis v Union of India & Others
D. National Legal Services Authority v Union of India

3. In which case the 42nd Amendment Act were declared as null and void by the
Supreme Court?

A. Minerva mills vs union of India

B. M.c Mehta vs union of India
C. Kasturi vs state of Rajasthan
D. Keshavnanda bharati vs state of kerala

4. Which case laid down the Basic structure doctrine?

A. Keshavnanada bharati vs. state of kerala

B. Adm Jabalpur vs. union of India
C. S.b subbarao vs. state of Tamilnadu
D. Janaki das vs. union of India

5. Which case laid the guidelines for sexual harassment at workplace?

A. Pooja vs. state of M.P

B. Naz foundation vs. state
C. Vishakha vs. state of rajasthan
D. Subramanium swamy vs. Union Of India

6. The court laid down basic guidelines for power of President's Rule in

A. S.R bommai vs. union of India

B. Minerva mills vs. union of India
C. Sushil mittal vs. union of India
D. Vidya bharati vs. state of Himachal Pradesh

7. The court held that Jat reservation is unconstitutional in

A. Ram Singh vs. Union of India

B. Shivam jaat vs. State of Haryana
 C. Rajbala vs. state of Rajasthan
D. Nishtha Kothari vs. state of Goa

8. In which case SC upheld constitutional validity of section 139AA of Income Tax

Act which made mandatory linkage of IT returns with AADHAAR subject to the
outcome of main case related to AADHAAR.

A. Subramanium swamy vs union of India

B. Biswam som vs Union of India
C. Puttuswamy vs union of India
D. Rajbala vs state of Haryana

9. In which case the Haryana Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2015 was
challenged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court
of India dismissed the challenge and upheld the constitutionality of the Act.

A. Rajbala vs state of Haryana

B. Priyadarshini matoo vs State of U.P
C. Bhupinder singh hooda vs state of Haryana
D. Naamdhari sekhon vs State of Punjab

10. Which case led to the imposition of emergency and was a landmark case
regarding election disputes, the primary issue was the validity of clause 4 of the
39th Amendment Act?

A. MC Mehta v Union Of India

B. Sunil narain vs Indira Gandhi
C. Raj narain vs Indira Gandhi
D. Sushil Gandhi vs Indira Gandhi

11. In which landmark case the Supreme Court held that the Second marriage of
Hindu man is invalid even if he converts to Islam before marriage?

A. Daniel latiffi vs. Union Of India

B. Sarla Mudgal vs. Union Of India
C. Roopa Hurrah vs. Ashok Hurrah.
D. Ramchandra Saraswati vs. Neena Bajpai

12. In which landmark legal case it was held that preamble is not a part of the
Indian Constitution?

A. Berubari Union(I), Re
B. Keshavnanada Bharti v. State of Kerala
C. S.R Bommai v. Union of India
D. T.M.A Pai v. Union of India

13. In which Landmark legal case the Supreme Court held that Parliament has the
right to amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution?

A. Sajjan singh v. State of Rajasthan

 B. Minera mills v. Union Of India
C. Bacchan Singh vs State of Punjab
D. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India

14. In which Landmark case Fundamental Rights were considered as Inviolable part
of the Indian Constitution?

A. Golak Nath vs. the State of Punjab

B. Keshavnanada Bharti vs. Union Of India
C. S.R Bommai V. Union Of India
D. Prem Singh v. State of Haryana

15. In which landmark case the Supreme Court of India held that held that the
power of judicial review vested in the High court under Art.226 and right to
move the Supreme Court under Art.32 is an integral and essential feature of the
Constitution?

A. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India

B. Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan,
C. Keshavnanada Bharti vs. Union Of India
D. Sheela barse vs. Union of India

16. Which Landmark constitutional case is known as the Mandal Case?

A. Indra Sawhney v. union of India

B. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
C. Hussainara khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar
D. Mithu v. State of Punjab

17. Which Landmark case of the Supreme Court talked about Speedy Trial?

A. Nandini Satpathi v. P.L. Dani

B. Hussainara khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar
C. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
D. Rajagopal v. State of Tamilnadu

18. In which Landmark case the Supreme Court held that Muslim women have the
right to maintenance?

A. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India

B. Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
C. Hussainara khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar
D. Sher singh v. State of Haryana.

19. In which Landmark Legal case court explained the provision ‘Procedure
Established by Law’?

A. Sajjan singh v. State of Rajasthan

B. Minerva mills v. Union of India
 C. Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab
D. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

20. In which Landmark Legal Case the Supreme court held the Right to Legal aid as
a Fundamental Right?

A. Sheela Barse v. Union of India

B. Keshavnanada Bharti v. State of Kerala
C. S.R Bommai v. Union of India
D. T.M.A Pai v. Union of India
1. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Others AIR 1984 SC 802– The
Supreme Court gave directions to end child labour. The orders eventually led to
enactment of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986.
2. M. C. Mehta & Another v. Union of India & Others AIR 1987 SC 1086– This
PIL was filed after the oleum gas leak from Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd.
complex at Delhi. The Court laid down the concept of absolute liability.
3. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others AIR 1978 SC 1675– Case was
with respect to reforms related to prisoner’s rights. There is no total deprivation of
a prisoner’s rights of life and liberty. Court went further into the right to be
protected from torture and the right to speedy execution.
4. Hussainara Khatoon & Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna AIR
1979 SC 1369– Free legal services to the poor and the needy is an essential
element of any ‘reasonable fair and just’ procedure. A prisoner has to seek his
liberation through the court’s process, and thus, should have legal services
available to him.
5. People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India & Others
(1982) 3 SCC 235– The scope of Article 23 is wide and unlimited and strikes at
“traffic in human beings” and “beggar and other forms of forced labour” wherever
they are found. The word ‘force’ must therefore be construed to include not only
physical or legal force but also force arising from the compulsion of economic
circumstances which leaves no choice of alternatives to a person in want, and
compels him to provide labour or service even though the remuneration received
for it is less than the minimum wage.
6. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1983 SC 378– The term ‘life’ in
Article 21 covers the living conditions of the prisoners, prevailing in the jails. The
prisoners are also entitled to the benefit of the guarantees provided in the Article
subject to reason able restrictions.
7. Dr. Upendra Baxi (I) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 1983 (2) SCC
308 – Case regarding inhuman conditions which were prevalent in Agra Protective
Home for Women. The court heard the petition on a number of days and gave
important directions via which the living conditions of the inmates were
significantly improved in the Home.
8. Shri Sachidanand Pandey & Another v. The State of West Bengal &
Others (1987) 2 SCC 295– State-owned or public-owned property is not to be
dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain principles such as
public interest are to be observed. Whenever a problem of ecology is brought
before the Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind Art. 48 A and Art. 51A(g) of
the Constitution.
9. Kharak Singh v State of UP AIR 1963 SC 1295– Personal liberty is that which
is the residue after taking out the freedom of expression under Article 19. Right to
privacy is not guaranteed under Article 21.
10. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180– Supreme
Court has held that the right to livelihood is included in the right to life because no
person can live without the means of living i.e. the means of livelihood. This is the
street vendors’ case.
11. Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam & Others (1995) 3 SCC 743–
Handcuffing and chaining in public shall be shunned as violative of human dignity
within and without prison.
12. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 353- (Taj Trapezium Case)-SC
ordered unconditional closing down of all brick-kilns located within 20 km radius
of Taj and in the Taj Trapezium Area. This case also expanded concept of
environment as including national heritage and also expanded scope under Article
32 since it said even foreigners have a right to enjoy our national heritage and thus,
their rights must be protected.
13. D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416– The Supreme Court laid
down specific guidelines required to be followed while making arrests.
14. Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India and Others (2009) 6 SCC 398- the
Supreme Court of India interpreted the right to education as inclusive of the right
to the provision of a safe environment in schools, and imposed an obligation on
schools to comply with certain fire safety precautions which were detailed in the
judgment.
15. Vishaka & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others (1997) 6 SCC 241– The
Court laid down guidelines and norms to be observed to prevent sexual harassment
of working women. The judgment led to enactment of Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
16. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar and Others AIR 1991 SC 420- Right to life
under Article 21 includes right to clean environment.
17. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others (1988) 1 SCC 471– (Ganga Water
Pollution Case)- Despite of sufficient provisions under the water act, the Kanpur
Mahapalika did not take necessary steps to prevent pollution. SC issued directions
to it for the same. Held rights of people residing near Ganga must be protected
against pollution.
18. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others AIR 1996 SC
2715– the Court discussed the concept of sustainable development as iterated in
the Stockholm Declaration and Rio Declaration. Stated it is a part of international
customary law. Emphasized on the need to balance development with ecological
concerns. Also, ruled that Polluter Pays and Precautionary Principle are a part of
the law of the land.
19. Re. Noise Pollution AIR 2005 SC 3136– Freedom from noise pollution is a part
of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
20. Vineet Narain & Others v. Union of India & Another AIR 1998 SC 889– This
case concerns the Hawala scandal in India, which uncovered possible bribery
payments to several high-ranking Indian politicians and bureaucrats from a
funding source linked to suspected terrorists. The Court laid down guidelines to
ensure independence and autonomy of the CBI and ordered that the CBI be placed
under the supervision of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), an
independent governmental agency intended to be free from executive control or
interference.
21. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Another AIR 2003
SC 3277– This PIL arose out of misallocation of licences / radio spectrum by
 Ministry of Communications and Information Technology in January 2008 to
provide 2G services. The licences granted to the private respondents and
subsequent allocation of spectrum to the licensees were declared illegal and were
quashed. Directions were issued for fresh grant of licences and allocation of
spectrum for 2G services on the basis of fresh recommendations by TRAI.
22. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and Others (1996)
5 SCC 281– Bicchri Case- Case by an NGO on behalf of the residents of Bicchri
village against the chemical industrial plants producing toxic effluents.
Government had not taken necessary action to protect rights of citizens to a
healthy environment under Article 21, and thus, it falls upon the Supreme Court to
intervene under Article 32. Imposed strict and absolute liability on the industrial
plants, and issued other directions.
23. State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7 SCC 639– The PIL was
regarding resettlement and rehabilitation of people displaced because of
construction of Sardar Sarovar Dam. The court introduced a mechanism to monitor
the progress of resettlement pari passu with the raising of the height of the dam
through the Grievance Redressal Authorities (GRA) in each party state.
24. Manohar Lal Sharma v the Principal Secretary (2014) 9 SCC 516– The Court
declared the Coal allocation between 1993 and 2009 illegal, arbitrary, non-
transparent and devoid of any procedure.
25. RK Garg vs. Union of India AIR 1976 SC 1559- constitutional validity of
Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exception) Act, 1981 was under challenge
on the ground that it made an unreasonable classification between persons who
illegally evaded payment of tax as against those who abided by the law. SC upheld
the legislation. Held that that morality was not an element to be considered while
judging the constitutional validity of a statute.
26. Mohd. Haroon v. Union of India (2013) 11 SCALE 675– the PIL was with
respect to the communal violence in Muzzafarnagar and neighbouring areas and
emphasized on the deteriorating condition of victims of these riots. The Supreme
Court directed the State of U.P, to take immediate charge of all persons who are
stranded without food and water supplies, and to set up relief camps providing all
required assistance, in association with the Central Government.
27. Ajay Bansal v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCALE 568- the PIL was related to
provisioning relief to people stranded in and around Gangotri river due to floods.
The Supreme Court expanded the scope of the PIL so as to cover all affected areas
of the State of Uttarakhand. The Court directed that for all affected persons,
immediate relief will continue to be provided by district magistrates of respective
districts by giving them food, medicine, drinking water and other essentials
including fuel wherever necessary.
28. Harshad J. Pabari v. State of Gujarat (2013) 3 GLR 258– the PIL sought a
direction to authorities to take appropriate action against the responsible
officer/staff for disclosing the identity of patients suffering from H.I.V./ AIDS by
affixing a tape on forehead of patients with the words “H.I.V. seropositive” printed
on it. The high court gave directions to end such unfair discrimination against
H.I.V./AIDS patients by doctors including the nursing staff of a hospital.
immediately.
29. Laxmi v. Union of India (2013) 9 SCALE 290- the PIL highlighted the need for
stringent regulations under the Poison Act, 1919 in respect of acid attacks on
women. The Supreme Court gave measures for the proper treatment, after care and
rehabilitation of the victims of acid attack and needs of acid attack victims, and
compensation payable to acid victims by state or the creation of a separate fund for
payment of compensation to the acid attack victims.
30. S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 433– The SC recognised the locus
standi of bar associations to file PILs. In this case, they had legitimate interest in
challenging the procedure for transferring judges.
31. Inaction of Police in Lodging FIR’s in Offences Against Women v. State of
U.P. (2013) 83 ALLCC 559- the Allahabad High Court took suo moto notice of
inordinate delay on part of the police to register the FIR with respect to offences
against women. The High Court held that it was the duty of the police to be aware
of the statement, especially when it is given by the victim in an injured condition
and to act on that basis if a cognizable offence is disclosed.
32. PUCL vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 433- The court recognized that the right
to food was part of Article 21 and, therefore, justiciable. The government has a
positive duty to help prevent malnutrition and starvation.
33. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCALE 507– the
Supreme Court issued a direction that in case a complaint with regard to any
missing children was made in a police station, the same must be reduced into an
FIR and appropriate steps should be taken to see that follow up investigation was
taken up immediately.
34. Dattaraj Nattuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra 2005 (1) SCC 590- the
Supreme Court of India stated that Public Interest Litigation has now come to
occupy an important field in the administration of law and stated that PIL should
not become ‘publicity’ or ‘private’ interest litigation. The court stressed the
necessity of imposing ‘exemplary” costs on people for bringing frivolous petitions.
35. Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India (2013) 1 SCALE
383- the PIL complained of non-implementation of section 17 of the Pre-
conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection)
Act, 1994 by the states and Union Territories and the failure to achieve its
objectives. The court directed the health secretaries of the concerned states to
apprise the court of the steps taken to implement the provisions of the Act and to
make available the latest statistics of the number of cases booked for violation of
the provisions of the Act, the prosecutions launched and the conviction rate.
36. Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCALE 497– the
PIL pertained to the supply of potable drinking water to the eighteen identified
areas surrounding the Union Carbide Factory in Bhopal. The Supreme Court had
held that there should be a monitoring committee to oversee the part of the work
being undertaken by the Bhopal Municipality for providing fresh drinking water.
37. Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar, 2003 (6) SCC 1– A letter was admitted as
PIL which brought Supreme Court’s notice to many incidents of death owing to
starvation or malnutrition due to non-payment of salaries of the workers working
in PSU corporations. The court pierced the corporate veil in this case and also held
the State of Bihar liable.
38. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan (1980) 4 SCC 162– In this case, the
court accepted the locus standi of the citizens of a ward to seek directions against
the Municipality for taking remedial action under Section 133 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and putting an end to the nuisance caused due to open drains,
pits and public excretion in the absence of lavatories.
39. G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCALE 102– The PIL was filed
against the setting up of power plant at Kudankulam. The court justified the setting
up of the plant, by emphasizing on striking a balance between the ecology and
environment on one hand and the projects of public utility on the other.
40. Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996) 1 SCC 490 the Supreme
Court suo moto awarded an interim compensation of Rs. 1,000 per month to a
victim of rape. The court observed that a woman, in our country, belongs to a class
or group of society who are in a disadvantaged position on account of several
social barriers and impediments and have, therefore, been the victims of tyranny,
at the hands of men with whom they, under the Constitution, enjoy equal status.
41. Noida Enterpreneurs’ Association v. New Okhla Development Authority
(2013) 14 SCALE 475 – the PIL filed to sought a thorough probe into the
allotment of land and plots and the abuse of power by the functionaries of NOIDA
after the arbitrary allotment of plot in NOIDA generated huge litigation in
Allahabad and Delhi High Courts. The court directed all the persons concerned to
show cause as to why allotments/alternative allotments made in their favour may
not be quashed.
42. News Item Hindustan Times A.Q.F.M. Yamuna v. Central Pollution Control
Board and Ors., 1999 (5) Scale 418- The Hon’ble Supreme Court took suo
moto cognizance of the news item on pollution of Yamuna river. Directed Central
Board to conduct investigations in the cities of Ghaziabad, NOIDA and Modi
Nagar with a view to having an assessment of environment impact and to the
status of pollution due to generation of different types of wastes.
43. Sector 14 Residents’ Welfare Association & Ors. Vs State of Delhi & Ors AIR
1999 SC 308- regarding the discharge of effluents from the Delhi territory through
Shahadra/Gazipur drai which pass through various sectors of the NOIDA area. SC
directed creation of committee to look into the issue.
44. Vincent Panikurlangara vs. Union of India 1987 SCR (2) 468- PIL for
directions for implementation of an adequate central policy and establishment of a
central drug standards authority, with suitable enforcement powers to ban “harmful
and injurious drugs”. Held- “A healthy body is a very foundation for all human
activities. In a welfare state therefore, it is the obligation of the state to ensure the
creation and the sustaining of conditions congenial to good health.” The right to
health was a part of the right to live with human dignity under Article 21.
45. Rural litigation and Environment Kendra, Dehradun and others v. State of
U.P. and others (1985) 2 SCC 431- the PIL involving issues relating to
environment and ecological balance with implications to the welfare of the
generality of people living in the country. The Supreme Court held that Article 2l
covers the right to a clean environment and that the permanent assets of mankind
cannot be allowed to be exhausted.
46. Bhartiya Janta Party v. State of West Bengal AIR 2013 Cal. 215 – the PIL
challenged the validity of the decision of the Government of West Bengal to grant
honorarium to the Imams and Muazzins of different mosques in the State of West
Bengal. Held-the state could not patronise or favour any particular religion and
reiterated that secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Thus,
violation of Article 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution.
47. Somdev Kapoor v. State of West Bengal (2013) 12 SCALE 434 – the PIL
pertained to cancellation of temporary liquor license on the ground that it was not
open for the appellant to run a liquor bar in the said restaurant which was in the
vicinity of religious places. Rule 8 of the West Bengal Excise Rules, 2003 bans
grant of a license for the retail sale of liquor or any other intoxicant at a new site
which is within 1000 feet from any college/educational institution /religious
places. Both High court and Supreme Court allowed the PIL, while directing the
excise department not to renew the license.
48. Khatri v. State of Bihar 1981 (1) SCC 627– A writ petition was filed in the
Supreme Court contending the violation of fundamental rights of prisoners in
Bhagalpur Central Jail under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and the
court came to their rescue. The court stressed on the need for implementing public
interest litigation in very explicit terms stating that the court should be prepared to
forge new tools and devise new remedies for the purpose of vindicating the most
precious of the precious fundamental right to life and personal liberty.
49. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India 1989 (4) SCC 286 -the Supreme Court
accepted the application by an advocate which highlighted a news item titled ‘Law
helps the injured die’. The supreme court in the context of medico-legal cases, has
emphasised the need for rendering immediate medical aid to injured persons to
preserve life and the obligations of the State as well as doctors in that regard.
50. In Re: Regularization of Class IV Employees (2013) 8 ADJ 43– the suo moto
PIL by the Allahabad High Court, examined the legality of the regularization of
355 daily labourers working in Allahabad High Court. The high court was of the
view that though in service matters, PILs were rarely admissible, in the present
case, it was the cause of the high court itself that had been noticed by the judges
for resolving an intricate problem relating to the workforce of the high court.