A year-wise revision table of the Supreme Court and Constitutional cases that come up again and again across Polity papers — background, holding and impact for each.
This is a year-wise revision table of the landmark Constitutional and Supreme Court judgments that shape almost every Polity paper across UPSC, APPSC, TSPSC and EPFO. It runs from Romesh Thappar (1950), decided within months of the Constitution coming into force, through to Vineeta Sharma (2020) on coparcenary rights — 60 cases in all, each with its background, the Court's holding, and its lasting impact on the Constitution.
| Case & Year | Related Issue | Article(s) | Court Judgement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) |
Freedom of Speech & Press | Art. 19 | Bg: Madras govt. banned entry of the English weekly 'Cross Roads' under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949. Held: Ban declared void — restrictions on speech can only rest on grounds listed in Art. 19(2), and 'public order' was not yet one of them. Impact: Led directly to the 1st Constitutional Amendment (1951), which added 'public order' to Art. 19(2). |
| A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) |
Preventive Detention | Art. 21, 22 | Bg: Challenged the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. Held: Held Sec. 14 of the Act violated Art. 22; rest of the Act upheld. Court read 'personal liberty' narrowly as mere freedom from physical restraint. Impact: Court checked only whether a law existed ('procedure established by law'), not whether it was fair — this narrow view held until Maneka Gandhi (1978). |
| Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras (1951) |
Communal G.O. / Reservation Policy | Art. 15, 29, 46 | Bg: Madras Govt.'s 1950 communal G.O. fixed caste-based quotas in educational institutions; Dorairajan denied admission despite high marks. Held: Fundamental Rights held to prevail over Directive Principles. Impact: 1st Constitutional Amendment, 1951 inserted Art. 15(4) enabling reservations for SC/ST & Backward Classes. |
| Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) |
Parliament's Power to Amend the Constitution | Art. 13, 368 | Bg: 1st C.A.A. inserted Art. 31A and the 9th Schedule to shield land-reform laws from judicial review. Held: A constitutional amendment is not 'law' under Art. 13 — so Fundamental Rights can be amended. Impact: Confirmed Art. 368 prevails over Art. 13 (Parliament's amending power upheld). |
| Berubari Union Case (1960) |
Transfer of Territory | Art. 3, 368 | Bg: Transfer of the Berubari area to Pakistan under an agreement was challenged. Held: Territory transfer requires a constitutional amendment. Impact: Led to the 9th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1960. |
| Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) |
Sedition vs. Free Speech | Art. 19(1)(a), 19(2) | Bg: The colonial-era sedition law was challenged as restricting free speech. Held: Sedition law upheld, but only for acts inciting violence or public disorder. Impact: Balanced national security concerns with free speech. |
| State of W. Bengal v. Union of India (1963) |
Federal Relations | Art. 246 | Bg: State challenged Parliament's power over coal mines within State territory. Held: Indian federation is not based on State sovereignty. Impact: Confirmed a strong Centre within India's federal structure. |
| Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) |
Amendment Validity | Art. 368 (17 & 6-A) | Bg: Land reform laws added to the 9th Schedule were challenged. Held: Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights. Impact: Doubts raised by some judges here later influenced the Golaknath case. |
| I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) |
Amendment of Fundamental Rights | Art. 13, 368 | Bg: A Punjab land-reform law was challenged. Held: Parliament CANNOT amend Fundamental Rights — given 'transcendental' status; overruled Shankari Prasad & Sajjan Singh. Impact: Led to the 24th Amendment, 1971, restoring Parliament's amendment power. |
| R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) |
Bank Nationalisation | Art. 14, 19, 31 | Bg: Govt. nationalised 14 banks. Held: Law violated property rights (compensation inadequate/arbitrary procedure). Impact: Introduced the 'Effect Test' (effect of a law on rights matters, not just its object) — influenced Maneka Gandhi later. |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) |
Basic Structure Doctrine | Art. 368 (24, 25, 29, C.A.A.) | Bg: Amendments affecting property rights were challenged before a 13-judge bench. Held: Parliament CAN amend the Constitution, but NOT its basic structure. Impact: Established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' — the single most important outcome in India's constitutional history. |
| Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) |
Election Dispute | Art. 329A (39th CAA) | Bg: An amendment tried to place the Prime Minister's election beyond the scrutiny of courts. Held: Art. 329A struck down as unconstitutional — violated the basic structure. Impact: Free & fair elections and judicial review declared part of the Basic Structure. |
| ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) |
Emergency & Personal Liberty | Art. 21, 359 | Bg: Habeas corpus (right to challenge detention) was suspended during the 1975 Emergency. Held: Citizens cannot challenge detention during Emergency. Impact: Later overturned; widely criticised as the Supreme Court's biggest judicial failure. |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) |
Personal Liberty | Art. 14, 19, 21 | Bg: Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded without giving reasons. Held: 'Procedure' under Art. 21 must be fair, just & reasonable — not arbitrary. Impact: Created the 'Golden Triangle' of Articles 14–19–21, overruling the narrow view from A.K. Gopalan. |
| Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) |
Limits on Amending Power | Art. 368 (42nd C.A.) | Bg: The 42nd Amendment tried to give Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution. Held: Struck down Sec. 4 (Art. 31C: DPSPs > FR) and Sec. 55 (Parliament cannot expand its own amending power). Impact: Balance between Fundamental Rights & DPSPs declared part of the Basic Structure. |
| Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) |
9th Schedule Review | Art. 31B | Bg: Challenge to laws placed in the 9th Schedule. Held: Laws inserted before 24 April 1973 (Kesavananda date) are valid; laws added after are reviewable. Impact: Basic Structure test made applicable to all future laws. |
| S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) |
Judges' Appointment ('1st Judges Case') | Art. 124, 217 | Bg: Dispute over who controls the process of appointing judges. Held: Executive given primacy in judicial appointments. Impact: Reversed later in the 2nd Judges Case (1993), which shifted primacy to the Judiciary. |
| Shah Bano Begum v. Mohd. Ahmed Khan (1985) |
Maintenance Rights of Divorced Muslim Women | Art. 14, 21 | Bg: A Muslim woman sought maintenance after being divorced. Held: Granted maintenance under Sec. 125 CrPC. Impact: Sparked the 1986 Muslim Women Act and the wider uniform civil code debate. |
| M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak) (1986) |
Industrial Pollution / Liability | Art. 21 | Bg: A gas leak from an industrial plant caused public harm. Held: Introduced the 'Absolute Liability' doctrine. Impact: Strengthened Indian environmental jurisprudence. |
| Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal Case) (1992) |
OBC Reservation | Art. 16(4) | Bg: Implementation of the Mandal Commission report was challenged. Held: Upheld 27% OBC quota with the 'creamy layer' exclusion. Impact: Introduced the 50% ceiling on total reservations. |
| Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) |
Anti-Defection Law | 10th Schedule | Bg: Validity of the 52nd Amendment (Anti-Defection Law) questioned. Held: Anti-defection law upheld. Impact: Speaker's decision on disqualification held subject to judicial review. |
| Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) |
Right to Education | Art. 21 | Bg: Capitation fee charged by private colleges was challenged. Held: Education held part of the Right to Life under Art. 21. Impact: Became the basis for Art. 21A later, via the Unnikrishnan case. |
| St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi (1992) |
Minority Rights in Admissions | Art. 29, 30 | Bg: Reservation of seats for Christian students was challenged. Held: Allowed limited preference for minority students. Impact: Balanced minority institutional rights with merit-based admission. |
| SC Advocates-on-Record Assoc. v. Union of India ('2nd Judges Case') (1993) |
Collegium System | Art. 124 | Bg: Challenge to Executive control over judicial appointments. Held: Judiciary given primacy in appointments, reversing the 1st Judges Case. Impact: Created the Collegium System for appointment of judges. |
| Unnikrishnan v. State of A.P. (1993) |
Education Rights | Art. 21, 45 | Bg: Case concerning regulation of private education. Held: Education held a fundamental right up to age 14. Impact: Led directly to the 86th Constitutional Amendment inserting Art. 21A. |
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) |
President's Rule | Art. 356 | Bg: Several State governments were dismissed using Art. 356. Held: Proclamation of President's Rule under Art. 356 is judicially reviewable. Impact: Floor test made mandatory; secularism declared part of the Basic Structure. |
| P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) |
Right to Die (Suicide) | Art. 21 | Bg: Sec. 309 IPC (attempt to suicide as a crime) was challenged. Held: Recognised a right to die under Art. 21. Impact: Later overruled in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, which denied any right to die under Art. 21. |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) |
Workplace Sexual Harassment | Art. 14, 19, 21 | Bg: No law existed against sexual harassment at the workplace. Held: Court framed the 'Vishaka Guidelines'. Impact: Became the basis for the POSH Act, 2013. |
| Samatha v. State of A.P. (1997) |
Tribal Land Protection & Mining | Art. 244, 5th Schedule | Bg: Mining leases were granted for tribal areas and challenged. Held: Private mining on tribal (Scheduled) lands declared invalid. Impact: Strengthened protection of tribal land rights. |
| L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) |
Judicial Review of Tribunals | Art. 32, 226 | Bg: Whether tribunal decisions could be treated as final, beyond HC/SC review. Held: High Courts & Supreme Court retain judicial review over tribunals. Impact: Judicial review confirmed as part of the Basic Structure. |
| P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998) |
Parliamentary Privilege | Art. 105 | Bg: MPs were accused of taking bribes to vote a particular way in Parliament. Held: MPs enjoy immunity for votes cast in Parliament. Impact: Defined the outer limits of parliamentary privilege. |
| In re: Presidential Reference ('3rd Judges Case') (1998) |
Collegium Clarification | Art. 124 | Bg: The President sought clarification on the collegium system. Held: Collegium expanded to CJI + 4 senior-most judges. Impact: Formalised the collegium composition that still governs appointments today. |
| T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) |
Rights of Private & Minority Educational Institutions | Art. 19(1)(g), 30 | Bg: Regulation of private colleges was challenged. Held: Recognised institutional autonomy, subject to reasonable regulation. Impact: Landmark ruling shaping the entire education-rights framework. |
| PUCL v. Union of India (Voter Information) (2003) |
Candidate/Voter Information | Art. 19(1)(a) | Bg: Demand for transparency in elections, arising from the ADR case (2002). Held: Voters have the right to know candidate details. Impact: Made disclosure of assets & criminal cases mandatory for candidates. |
| Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) |
Misuse of President's Rule | Art. 356 | Bg: The Bihar Assembly was dissolved even before a government could be formed. Held: Dissolution declared unconstitutional. Impact: Limited arbitrary/premature use of Art. 356. |
| M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) |
Reservation in Promotion | Art. 16 | Bg: Constitutional amendments permitting reservation in promotions were challenged. Held: Allowed, but subject to backwardness, inadequate representation and efficiency conditions. Impact: Introduced the 'creamy layer & quantifiable data' requirement for promotion quotas. |
| Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) |
Police Reforms & Autonomy | Art. 21 | Bg: Political interference in police functioning was challenged. Held: Issued binding directives for police reform. Impact: Led to State Security Commissions & fixed tenure for senior police officers. |
| I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) |
9th Schedule Review | Art. 31B | Bg: Challenge to the blanket immunity given to laws placed in the 9th Schedule. Held: Laws added to the 9th Schedule after 24 April 1973 are subject to the Basic Structure test. Impact: Strengthened the scope of judicial review. |
| Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India (2009) |
Child Safety & Protection | Art. 21 | Bg: Concerns raised over child safety in educational institutions. Held: Emphasised strict safety norms for children. Impact: Strengthened the child-protection framework that fed into the POCSO Act, 2012. |
| B.P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) |
Removal of Governors | Art. 156 | Bg: Arbitrary removal of State Governors was challenged. Held: Removal permitted, but not if arbitrary or mala fide. Impact: Limited misuse of the 'pleasure doctrine'. |
| Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) |
Salwa Judum | Art. 21 | Bg: A State-backed tribal militia (Salwa Judum) was raised to fight Maoists. Held: Declared unconstitutional. Impact: Ordered the disbanding of Salwa Judum. |
| Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) |
Passive Euthanasia | Art. 21 | Bg: Petition seeking mercy killing of a patient in a permanent coma. Held: Allowed passive euthanasia, subject to court approval. Impact: Recognised the 'right to die with dignity'. |
| Centre for PIL v. Union of India (2G Case) (2012) |
Corruption in Spectrum Allocation | Art. 14 | Bg: 2G telecom licences were allocated arbitrarily (first-come-first-served). Held: Cancelled 122 licences; stressed the need for transparency. Impact: Promoted auction-based allocation of natural resources. |
| PUCL v. Union of India (NOTA Case) (2013) |
Right to Reject | Art. 19 | Bg: Voters had no option to reject all candidates. Held: Introduced NOTA (None Of The Above) in EVMs. Impact: Increased freedom & meaningfulness of the vote. |
| Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) |
MP/MLA Disqualification | RPA, 1951 | Bg: Convicted MPs/MLAs could earlier retain their seat while an appeal was pending. Held: Sec. 8(4) RPA struck down (had allowed retention of a seat if appeal was filed within 3 months). Impact: Immediate disqualification on conviction, with no grace period. |
| Subramanian Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) |
Freebies in Elections | Art. 14, 282 | Bg: Poll-time 'freebies' promised by political parties were challenged. Held: Not illegal/corrupt, but the Election Commission was asked to frame guidelines. Impact: Sparked the ongoing debate on populism vs. fiscal discipline. |
| NALSA v. Union of India (2014) |
Transgender Rights | Art. 14, 21 | Bg: Demand for legal recognition of transgender persons. Held: Recognised a 'third gender'. Impact: Became the basis for the Transgender Persons Act, 2019. |
| UIDAI v. CBI (Aadhaar Data Case) (2014) |
Aadhaar Data Sharing & Privacy | Art. 21 | Bg: Sharing of Aadhaar data with investigative agencies was challenged. Held: Restricted sharing of Aadhaar data without consent. Impact: Strengthened data-protection concerns around Aadhaar. |
| Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) |
Internet Freedom | Art. 19 | Bg: Sec. 66A of the IT Act was being misused to make arbitrary arrests. Held: Sec. 66A struck down as vague & unclear. Impact: Protected online free speech. |
| Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) |
Criminal Defamation | Art. 19, 21 | Bg: The IPC's criminal defamation provision was challenged. Held: Criminal defamation upheld. Impact: 'Reputation' recognised as part of Art. 21. |
| Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) |
Right to Privacy | Art. 21 | Bg: Case arose from concerns over Aadhaar and data privacy. Held: Privacy declared a Fundamental Right. Impact: Became the major basis for India's data-protection law debates. |
| Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) |
Triple Talaq | Art. 14 | Bg: The practice of instant divorce (triple talaq) was challenged. Held: Practice declared unconstitutional. Impact: Led to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. |
| Mukesh v. State of Delhi (Nirbhaya Case) (2017) |
Rape & Death Penalty | Art. 21 | Bg: The 2012 Delhi gang-rape case. Held: Confirmed the death penalty for the convicts. Impact: Strengthened criminal law on sexual offences. |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) |
LGBTQ+ Rights | Art. 14, 19, 21 | Bg: Sec. 377 IPC criminalised consensual same-sex relations. Held: Decriminalised consensual same-sex relations. Impact: Recognised the dignity of the LGBTQ+ community. |
| Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) |
Adultery Law | Art. 14, 21 | Bg: IPC Sec. 497 let only a husband prosecute another man for adultery, treating the wife as property. Held: Sec. 497 struck down. Impact: Adultery remains a civil ground for divorce, no longer a crime. |
| Ind. Young Lawyers Assoc. v. State of Kerala (2018) |
Sabarimala Entry | Art. 14, 25 | Bg: Women aged 10–50 were barred from entering the Sabarimala temple. Held: Ban declared unconstitutional. Impact: Gender equality prioritised over claims of religious exclusion. |
| Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) |
Living Will | Art. 21 | Bg: Demand for legal recognition of 'living wills' (advance medical directives). Held: Allowed passive euthanasia through a living will. Impact: Expanded the 'right to a dignified death'. |
| Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (Hadiya Case) (2018) |
Right to Choose a Partner | Art. 21 | Bg: A marriage was annulled by a High Court, overriding the woman's own choice. Held: Restored marriage as an individual choice under Art. 21. Impact: Affirmed personal autonomy in decisions about marriage. |
| Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) |
Internet Shutdown | Art. 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) | Bg: Internet restrictions imposed in J&K after the abrogation of Art. 370. Held: Access to the internet linked to freedom of speech & trade. Impact: Shutdown orders must be temporary and subject to periodic review. |
| Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) |
Daughters' Property Rights | Art. 14 | Bg: Interpretation of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was in question. Held: Daughters have equal coparcenary rights, by birth, same as sons. Impact: Settled the ambiguity left by earlier conflicting judgments. |
Prelims tends to test the article number ↔ case ↔ one-line holding triangle — for example, which case introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973), or which case created the "Golden Triangle" of Articles 14–19–21 (Maneka Gandhi, 1978). Mains answers score well when they trace a doctrine's evolution across cases — e.g. Shankari Prasad → Golaknath → Kesavananda Bharati on the amending power, or the four Judges Cases (1982, 1993, 1998, 2015) on how the collegium system came to be and was nearly replaced by the NJAC.
