Test: Landmark Judgements - 1 - CLAT MCQ

Supreme Court in a landmark judgment struck down section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which provided provisions for the arrest of those who posted allegedly offensive content on the internet upholding freedom of expression. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending “offensive” messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or tablet and a conviction of it can fetch a maximum three years of jail and a fine.

The Supreme Court, in National Legal Service Authority vs Union of India (“NALSA”), has given legal recognition to the transgender community by mandating that they be treated as the third gender, thereby doing away with the binary understanding of gender.

The 42^nd Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution (Forty-second amendment) Act, 1976, was enacted during the Emergency (25 June 1975 – 21 March 1977) by the Indian National Congress government headed by Indira Gandhi. This amendment brought about the most widespread changes to the Constitution in its history, and is sometimes called a “mini-Constitution” or the Constitution of Indira. The radical changes brought in by Indira Gandhi were neutralized by holding them unconstitutional in Minerva Mills’s judgement.

The case of Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, is perhaps the most well-known constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of India. While ruling that there is no implied limitation on the powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution, it held that no amendment can do violence to its basic structure (the “Basic Structure Doctrine”). Further, it established the Supreme Court’s right of review and, therefore, established its supremacy on constitutional matters.

Vishakha and others vs State of Rajasthan was a 1997 Indian Supreme Court case where Vishakha and other women groups filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against State of Rajasthan and Union of India to enforce the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Justice J.S Verma was also a member of the bench who laid out the guidelines in this case. Later after Nirbhaya case in 2013, Justice Verma Committee was constituted to recommend amendments to the Criminal Law so as to provide for quicker trial and enhanced punishment for criminals accused of committing sexual assault against women. The Committee submitted its report on January 23, 2013.

Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India:- The case is related to the offence of Bigamy, conflict between the personal laws and a strong need for the uniform civil code in the country. The court held that, the second marriage of Hindu man after being converted to Islam, will be invalid if the first marriage has not been dissolved.

In Berubari Union(I), Re:- It was held that the preamble is not part of the constitution. This judgement was overruled by 13 Judge Bench in Keshvananda Bharti case and it was held that the ‘Preamble is part of Indian Constitution’.

Shankari Prasad Case vs. Union of India, 1951 Shankari Prasad vs. Union of India is a landmark case in the basic structure of our constitution. In the cases, the power to amend the rights had been upheld on the basis of Article 368. Chief Justice Subba Rao writing for the majority six judges in special bench of eleven, overruled the previous decisions.

the Kesavananda Bharati case

In 1973, a landmark judgement ensued in the Kesavananda Bharati case, where the SC held 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.”

The Supreme Court in this case held the exclusion of right to appeal under Article 226 and 32 is unconstitutional. These provisions in Article 323-A and 323-B are unconstitutional because they deny judicial review which is the basic feature of the Constitution.