Important Cases
1: Minerva mill Vs union of India 1980.
S.C declared 368(4) and (5) unconstitutional
368(4) – no amendment of this constitution shall be called in question or challenged in court.
368(5) – there shall be no limitation on constituent power of parliament to amend any provision of constitution.
2: Indira Sahani Vs Union of India 1992
reservation of 27% of seats in favour of OBC is constitutionally valid.
3: Nagraj Vs union of India
reservation policy shall satisfy the constitutional requirement
4: Balaji Raghawan Vs union of India 1996
S.C held that national awards are not violatry of 18(1)and they are of nature of academic distinction right to equality does not mandate that merit should not be recognized by the state.
5: CMP Vs Bearcat Kumar and other 1998.
right to strike does not includes the right to call for bandh and bandh is illegal, it involves element of coercion and important a psychological form of fear. on general public.
6: Rangathan Vs State of Tamil Nadu 2003
civil servant do not enjoy ethical normal or legal right to strike. They shall use the machinery provided by government to get grievances redressed.
7: A.K Gopalan Vs state of Madras 1950.
S.C held that art – 21 guarantees only personal liberty for individual therefore the individual enjoys protection for his bodily part but not the aspect of liberties such as right to movement, right to freedom and speech.
8:Maneka Gandhi Vs UOI 1978
Supreme court over rule its earlier decision and held that there is no difference between liberty and personal liberty. therefore arrest and detention of an individual has not only to satisfy art -21 but also art -19.
Principle of natural justice are inherently forced in art -21 and succeeded in realty the due process of law in art -21.
9: U.N Rao Vs Indira Gandhi
S.C held that it is constitutional imperative for president to have a council of minister to aid – advice even when Lok Sabha stands dissolved.
10. Ram Jaway Vs state of Punjab 1955 and samsher singh Vs state of Punjab 1974
S.C held that since the constitution has adopted the parliamentary form of government,
president is head of state but not the head of government. it is Prime minster who is head of the government
11: Viplav Sharma Vs union of India 2004
S.C geld that president can not dissolve the Lok Sabha without the advice of Council of Minister.
12: Keshavanand Bharti Vs state of Kerala 1973
preamble is a part of constitution.
S.C upheld the constitutional validity of 24th amendment act and held the parliament enjoys the constitutional legislation power under art -368 to amend the constitution.
13: Kanvadasan Vs state of Tamil Nadu 1996
constitution incorporates the check and balance
14: Kahar singh Vs union of India 1989
constitution emanates from people.
15: Bhikaji Narayan Vs state of MP 1955.
all such pre constitutional law that violate one or more fundamental right are dead all together
16: Deepchandra Vs State of UP 1959.
doctrine of eclipse applied to pre-constitutional laws, post constitutional laws are void ab-initio as still born law and can not be revived and are dead law.
17: State of Gujarat Vs Sri Amblcamill case 1974.
even a post constitutional law come under the doctrine of eclipse.
18: Sankari prasad Vs union of India 1951
S.C held that legislature enjoys two type of legislative power. first ordinary legislation power and second constitutional legislative power
any enactment of parliament made in exercise of ordinary power is called “law” and it comes under the meaning of art-13(2).
Therefore parliament cannot amend the constitution in exercise of ordinary legislative power. on other hand any enactment under art -368 does not comes under the meaning of 13(2) and is called amendment act.
19: Sajjan singh Vs state of Rajasthan 1965
same interpretation as above.
20:Goloknath Vs state of Punjab 1967
S.C over ruled its earlier decision and held that parliament enjoys only one type of legislative power (ordinary legislation Power)
Art 368 merely contains procedure to amendment, but did not confer the power to parliament to amend the constitution therefore parliament can not amend the constitution.
abhijeetgautam 