Landmark court decisions in India substantially change the interpretation of existing law. Such a landmark decision may settle the law in more than one way. In present-day common law legal systems it may do so by:A. W. B. Simpson, Leading Cases in the Common Law, Clarendon Press, 1996 Establishing a significant new legal principle or concept; Overturning prior precedent based on its negative effects or flaws in its reasoning; Distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of stare decisis; Establishing a "test" (that is, a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions).
In India, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the Supreme Court of India, which is the highest judicial body in India. High courts of India may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case or if it adopts the holding of the lower court.
Individual rights +Name of the caseYearJudgementRomesh Thappar vs State of Madras1950Ban on dissenting media under the Section 9 (1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 struck down as unconstitutional.This in-turn led to formulation of the 1st amendment of the Constitution of India which clarified public order can form grounds for reasonable restrictions of free speech.State of Madras v. VG Row 1952Restrictions on fundamental rights must be just, fair, and reasonable, and arbitrary infringement of rights is subject to judicial review. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union Of India (Bank Nationalization Case)1970The Supreme Court held that the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969, was unconstitutional and void because it failed to provide just and adequate compensation and was discriminatory.Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala1973Fundamental rights cannot be abrogated by Parliament. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh1977Right to propagate religion does not include the right to convert by force, fraud or allurement.Hussainara Khatoon vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar1979Right to life under Article 21 includes the right to a speedy trial.Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum1985Upheld the payment of maintenance and alimony to Shah Bano and hence to Muslim women by Muslim Husbands. The Rajiv Gandhi ministry passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 which diluted this judgement and restricted the right to maintenance and alimony which was heavily criticized as a move to appease Muslims opposing the judgement. The Supreme court later through Danial Latifi v. Union of India case and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan upheld the Shah Bano judgement effectively nullifying the Muslim Women Act, 1986.Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of KeralaAIR 1987 SC 7481986Compelling students to sing the national anthem against their religious beliefs violates Article 25(1) of the Constitution, which grants the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. The freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) also includes the right to remain silent. Sodan Singh v New Delhi Municipal Committee & Another1989Street trading is an age-old vocation and cannot be denied by the government as a matter of right on the pavements and roads of the city of Delhi, claiming that the streets are meant exclusively for passing or repassing and no other use.1989 SCC (4) 155; see Headnote Only reasonable restrictions could be imposed under Article 19(6). What would constitute a reasonable restriction must be judged objectively on the basis of facts and circumstances in each case. All public streets and roads in India vest in the state, but the state holds them as trustee on behalf of the public.Charan Lal Sahu v Union of India1989The constitutional validity of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, was challenged in this case on the grounds that it deprived the claimant of his right to seek legal remedies against the Union Carbide Company. The court held that as parents partiae, the state was justified in assuming the role of guardian for the victims.National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India2014Recognised transgender as 'third gender' in law and affirmed that the fundamental rights granted under the Constitution of India will be equally applicable to them.ABC v. The State (NCT of Delhi)2015Unwed woman belonging to the Christian faith can become a legal guardian of her child without the father's consent.Shreya Singhal v. Union of India2015Struck down restrictions on online speech introduced in Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India or The Right to Privacy verdict2017Right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India thus overruling ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla.This judgement thus overruled the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976):ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla AIR 1207 (28 April 1976), S.C. (India) A person's right to not be unlawfully detained (i.e. habeas corpus) can be suspended during emergency.Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India2018Decriminalisation of acts of Oral sex and Anal sex which effectively decriminalised Homosexual sex.This judgement thus overruled Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013): Upheld and reinstated the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalising Anal sexThis judgement thus overruled Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009): Decriminalization of homosexual acts involving consenting adults throughout India.Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration2019The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) directed the Tamil Nadu state to ban forced sex-selective surgeries on intersex infants,. the high court of Tamil Nadu, ruled that the term "bride" under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 includes trans women. Specifically, it directed the authorities to register a marriage between a man and a transgender woman.Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal2022Atypical families and same-sex couples are deserving of equal protection under law and benefits available under social welfare legislation.Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India or EWS Reservation Case.2022The legality of the 103rd Amendment of the Constitution, which provides reservation in educational institutes as well as in jobs for the economically weaker sections, was upheld.Supriyo v. Union of India2023The right to marry is a statutory right, not a constitutional right. Therefore, only Parliament can recognize the marriage between non-heterosexual couples.
Criminal law +Name of the caseYearJudgementManeka Gandhi v. Union of India1978A 'procedure' under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be arbitrary, unfair, oppressive, or unreasonable. A law depriving a person of 'personal liberty' must not violate any of the Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.This judgement thus overruled A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) Court upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, with the exception of Section 14, which restricted disclosure of the grounds of detention, which was deemed unconstitutional.Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan1997Establishment of the Vishakha Guidelines to handle sexual harassments of women at workplace until sufficient legislation is implemented for the purpose.This ruling was superseded by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh2006 A person is not convictable under Section 376 2e (Raping a pregnant women) if he had certain knowledge of the fact that the victim is pregnant. The knowledge of the fact must be proven to certainty and not possibility. Consequently, in this case, the accused was sentenced under Section 376 (1), and was sentenced to milder punishment. Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar or The Arnesh Kumar Guidelines2014Arrests should be an exception, in cases where the punishment is less than seven years of imprisonment.
Constitutional jurisprudence The Supreme Court of India, which is the highest judicial body in India, has decided many leading cases of Constitutional jurisprudence, establishing Constitution Benches for hearing the same. Given below are a list of some leading cases.