10 Judgements That Changed India

1. The Supreme Court's role in shaping India's constitutional landscape

The Supreme Court crystallized this remedy into a rule of law through its verdict in 1993.

Basic structure doctrine. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established the "basic structure" doctrine, which limits Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. This landmark decision asserted that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its essential features or basic structure.

Judicial review power. The Supreme Court has consistently expanded its power of judicial review, allowing it to strike down laws and even constitutional amendments that violate the basic structure. This has led to a dynamic interpretation of the Constitution, adapting it to changing social and political realities.

Public interest litigation. The court has liberalized the rules of standing, allowing public-spirited individuals to file cases on behalf of disadvantaged groups. This has transformed the Supreme Court into a powerful institution for social change and protection of fundamental rights.

2. Expanding the right to life: From procedural to substantive due process

The Supreme Court moved from a pedantic to a purposive approach in construing the sweep of the right to life under the Constitution.

Maneka Gandhi case. The 1978 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case marked a shift from a narrow interpretation of Article 21 (right to life) to a broad, expansive one. The court held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it.

Inclusion of socio-economic rights. Post-Maneka Gandhi, the court has read various socio-economic rights into Article 21, including:

• Right to health
• Right to education
• Right to shelter
• Right to clean environment
• Right to privacy

Proportionality test. The court now applies a proportionality test to determine if any law infringing on fundamental rights is justified, requiring the state to show that the restriction is reasonable and necessary.

3. Personal laws vs. uniform civil code: The Shah Bano case and its aftermath

The Shah Bano judgement uncovered conflicts at intricate levels—between the emancipation of women and their belonging to a minority community, between safeguarding religious traditions and ushering in a democracy that applies a uniform set of civil laws to all citizens regardless of religious affiliations, and between lawmakers and courts (on who would have the last word in areas where law and religion overlapped).

Shah Bano case. In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that a divorced Muslim woman was entitled to maintenance beyond the iddat period under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This decision sparked controversy and led to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

Uniform Civil Code debate. The case reignited the debate on the need for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as envisaged in Article 44 of the Constitution. Supporters argue that a UCC would ensure gender equality and national integration, while opponents view it as an infringement on religious freedom.

Judicial interpretation of personal laws. Subsequent cases have sought to balance religious personal laws with constitutional principles of equality and justice:

• Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001): Upheld Muslim women's right to fair maintenance
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): Declared triple talaq unconstitutional

4. Socio-economic rights: Recognizing the right to shelter and livelihood

The court recognized that the right to life is ineffectual without the means by which that right can be meaningfully exercised.

Olga Tellis case. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood. This landmark decision expanded the scope of Article 21 to include socio-economic rights.

Right to shelter. The court recognized that the right to shelter is essential for human dignity and development. It directed state governments to provide alternative accommodation when evicting slum dwellers.

Challenges in implementation. While the court has been proactive in recognizing socio-economic rights, implementation remains a challenge due to:

• Resource constraints
• Lack of political will
• Conflict with development projects (e.g., Narmada Dam case)

5. Corporate accountability and environmental justice: Lessons from Bhopal

Bhopal was undoubtedly the darkest reflection of globalization.

Bhopal gas tragedy. The 1984 Bhopal gas leak, one of the world's worst industrial disasters, exposed the inadequacies of India's legal system in dealing with corporate negligence and environmental crimes.

Legal aftermath. The case highlighted several issues:

• Difficulty in holding multinational corporations accountable
• Inadequate compensation for victims
• Delays in criminal proceedings against responsible individuals

Environmental law reforms. The Bhopal tragedy led to significant reforms in environmental law:

• Enactment of the Environment Protection Act, 1986
• Introduction of the principle of absolute liability in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
• Adoption of the "polluter pays" principle

6. Affirmative action: Balancing equality and social justice

Clearly, India's discourse on reservations hinges not on whether it should exist, but on who should benefit from it.

Indra Sawhney case. The 1992 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India case upheld 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs, subject to the "creamy layer" exclusion.

Key principles:

• 50% ceiling on total reservations
• Exclusion of "creamy layer" from OBC reservations
• No reservations in promotions (later overturned by constitutional amendment)

Ongoing debates:

• Reservations in private sector
• Sub-categorization within OBCs
• Reservations based on economic criteria

7. Judicial activism in protecting women's rights and personal liberty

The Supreme Court's judgement in Vishaka has been widely critiqued as one that went out of bounds with reference to the facts before the court.

Vishaka guidelines. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplace, filling a legislative vacuum.

Judicial legislation. The court has often stepped in to protect fundamental rights when the legislature has failed to act:

• Guidelines on arrest and detention (D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal)
• Recognition of transgender rights (NALSA v. Union of India)

Criticism and challenges. While judicial activism has advanced human rights, it has also faced criticism for:

• Overstepping separation of powers
• Lack of accountability in policy-making
• Inconsistent implementation of court directives

8. Judicial appointments: Ensuring independence of the judiciary

Today, there is no institutionalized system of making recommendations for the appointment of judges.

Evolution of appointment process:

1. Executive primacy (pre-1993)
2. Judicial primacy (Second Judges Case, 1993)
3. Collegium system (Third Judges Case, 1998)

Collegium system. The current system, where senior judges of the Supreme Court recommend appointments, has been criticized for:

• Lack of transparency
• Allegations of nepotism
• Exclusion of executive input

Reform attempts. Efforts to reform the appointment process:

• National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 (struck down by Supreme Court)
• Ongoing debates on improving transparency and accountability in judicial appointments

9. Euthanasia debate: Balancing right to life with dignity in death

The Supreme Court opened a window of opportunity to legalize euthanasia within the existing legal framework.

Aruna Shanbaug case. In Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), the Supreme Court legalized passive euthanasia under certain circumstances.

Key principles:

• Distinction between active and passive euthanasia
• Recognition of living wills and advance directives
• Procedure for approval of passive euthanasia through high courts

Ongoing debates:

• Right to die with dignity as part of right to life
• Safeguards against misuse of euthanasia provisions
• Need for comprehensive legislation on end-of-life care

Last updated: November 18, 2024