Important Judgements of Independent India | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE PDF Download

 Page 1


Important Judgements of Independent India
Indian Polity
The Constitution of India, enacted in 1950, has been the cornerstone of India’s
democracy. After its enactment it has undergone several amendments.
The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and, by its creative
and innovative interpretation, has been the protector of our constitutional rights and
fundamental freedom.
These judgements are to be appreciated not only as precedents, but also as having
laid down the law on issues of paramount importance—law that is binding on all courts
and authorities in the country.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Main theme: Propagating the ‘basic structure’ doctrine as a safeguard against the
usurpation of the Constitution.
It was unique for the reason that it brought a shift in the balance of democratic power.
Earlier judgements had taken a stand that Parliament could amend even the
fundamental rights through a proper legislative process. 
 
But the present case held that Parliament can not amend or alter the fundamental
structure a ‘Basic Structure’ of the constitution.
Besides, Kesavananda Case was significant in that the Supreme Court ascribed to
itself the function of preserving the integrity of the Indian Constitution.
Page 2


Important Judgements of Independent India
Indian Polity
The Constitution of India, enacted in 1950, has been the cornerstone of India’s
democracy. After its enactment it has undergone several amendments.
The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and, by its creative
and innovative interpretation, has been the protector of our constitutional rights and
fundamental freedom.
These judgements are to be appreciated not only as precedents, but also as having
laid down the law on issues of paramount importance—law that is binding on all courts
and authorities in the country.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Main theme: Propagating the ‘basic structure’ doctrine as a safeguard against the
usurpation of the Constitution.
It was unique for the reason that it brought a shift in the balance of democratic power.
Earlier judgements had taken a stand that Parliament could amend even the
fundamental rights through a proper legislative process. 
 
But the present case held that Parliament can not amend or alter the fundamental
structure a ‘Basic Structure’ of the constitution.
Besides, Kesavananda Case was significant in that the Supreme Court ascribed to
itself the function of preserving the integrity of the Indian Constitution.
The ‘basic structure’ doctrine formulated by the court represented the pinnacle of
judicial creativity and set a benchmark for other constitutional courts around the world.
The doctrine ruled that even a constitutional amendment could be invalidated if it
impaired the essential features—the basic structure—of the Constitution.
Evolution of the Basic structure doctrine
Since the adoption of Indian Constitution, debates have started regarding the power of
the Parliament to amend key provisions of the Constitution.
In the early years of Independence, the Supreme Court conceded absolute power to
Parliament in amending the Constitution, as was seen in the verdicts in Shankari
Prasad case (1951) and Sajjan Singh case (1965).
 
This means Parliament had the power to amend any part of the constitution
including Fundamental rights.
However, in the Golaknath case (1967), the Supreme Court held that Parliament could
not amend Fundamental Rights, and this power would be only with a Constituent
Assembly.
 
The Court held that an amendment under Article 368 is "law" within the meaning
of Article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment "takes away or
abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void.
To get over the judgments of the Supreme Court in the Golaknath case (1967), RC
Cooper case (1970), and Madhavrao Scindia case (1970), the then government
headed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had enacted major amendments to the
Constitution (the 24 , 25 , 26 and 29 ).
All the four amendments brought by the government were challenged in the
Kesavananda Bharati case.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Main theme: Expanding the meaning of the ‘right to life’ under the Constitution of India
The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 reads: ‘No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by
law”.
In other words, courts were not allowed to question any law—no matter how arbitrary
or oppressive—as violating the right to life or personal liberty if the law had been
suitably passed and enacted.
However, by vesting in itself the power of substantive review under Article 21, the
court transformed itself from being merely a supervisor, to being a watchdog of the
Constitution.
th th th th
Page 3


Important Judgements of Independent India
Indian Polity
The Constitution of India, enacted in 1950, has been the cornerstone of India’s
democracy. After its enactment it has undergone several amendments.
The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and, by its creative
and innovative interpretation, has been the protector of our constitutional rights and
fundamental freedom.
These judgements are to be appreciated not only as precedents, but also as having
laid down the law on issues of paramount importance—law that is binding on all courts
and authorities in the country.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Main theme: Propagating the ‘basic structure’ doctrine as a safeguard against the
usurpation of the Constitution.
It was unique for the reason that it brought a shift in the balance of democratic power.
Earlier judgements had taken a stand that Parliament could amend even the
fundamental rights through a proper legislative process. 
 
But the present case held that Parliament can not amend or alter the fundamental
structure a ‘Basic Structure’ of the constitution.
Besides, Kesavananda Case was significant in that the Supreme Court ascribed to
itself the function of preserving the integrity of the Indian Constitution.
The ‘basic structure’ doctrine formulated by the court represented the pinnacle of
judicial creativity and set a benchmark for other constitutional courts around the world.
The doctrine ruled that even a constitutional amendment could be invalidated if it
impaired the essential features—the basic structure—of the Constitution.
Evolution of the Basic structure doctrine
Since the adoption of Indian Constitution, debates have started regarding the power of
the Parliament to amend key provisions of the Constitution.
In the early years of Independence, the Supreme Court conceded absolute power to
Parliament in amending the Constitution, as was seen in the verdicts in Shankari
Prasad case (1951) and Sajjan Singh case (1965).
 
This means Parliament had the power to amend any part of the constitution
including Fundamental rights.
However, in the Golaknath case (1967), the Supreme Court held that Parliament could
not amend Fundamental Rights, and this power would be only with a Constituent
Assembly.
 
The Court held that an amendment under Article 368 is "law" within the meaning
of Article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment "takes away or
abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void.
To get over the judgments of the Supreme Court in the Golaknath case (1967), RC
Cooper case (1970), and Madhavrao Scindia case (1970), the then government
headed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had enacted major amendments to the
Constitution (the 24 , 25 , 26 and 29 ).
All the four amendments brought by the government were challenged in the
Kesavananda Bharati case.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Main theme: Expanding the meaning of the ‘right to life’ under the Constitution of India
The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 reads: ‘No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by
law”.
In other words, courts were not allowed to question any law—no matter how arbitrary
or oppressive—as violating the right to life or personal liberty if the law had been
suitably passed and enacted.
However, by vesting in itself the power of substantive review under Article 21, the
court transformed itself from being merely a supervisor, to being a watchdog of the
Constitution.
th th th th
The Supreme Court’s judgement in the Maneka Gandhi case effectively meant that
‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 would have the same effect as the
expression ‘due process of law’. 
 
In a subsequent decision, the Supreme Court stated that Article 21 would read
as: ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to fair, just and reasonable procedure established by valid law.
Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)
Main theme: Questioning the sanctity of personal religious laws and bringing the debate
on a Uniform Civil Code to the forefront of the national discourse.
In April 1985, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement on the maintenance a
divorced Muslim woman would be entitled to receive from her former husband in the
case of Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (Shah Bano).
It is seen as one of the milestones in Muslim women’s fight for rights in India and the
battle against the set Muslim personal law. It laid the ground for thousands of women to
make legitimate claims which they were not allowed before.
While the Supreme Court upheld the right to alimony in the case, the judgment set off a
political battle as well as a controversy about the extent to which courts can interfere in
Muslim personal law.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
Main theme: Delivering the decision relating to the constitutionality of reservations under
the Constitution of India.
In the Indra Sawhney judgment (1992), the Court upheld the government’s move and
proclaimed that the advanced sections among the OBCs (i.e, the creamy layer) must
be excluded from the list of beneficiaries of reservation. It also held that the concept of
creamy layer must be excluded for SCs & STs.
The Indra Sawhney verdict also held there would be reservation only in initial
appointments and not promotions. 
 
But the government through this amendment introduced Article 16(4A) to the
Constitution, empowering the state to make provisions for reservation in matters
of promotion to SC/ST employees if the state feels they are not adequately
represented.
The Supreme Court in the judgement also capped the reservation quota at 50%.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Main theme: Innovating jurisprudence to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace.
Page 4


Important Judgements of Independent India
Indian Polity
The Constitution of India, enacted in 1950, has been the cornerstone of India’s
democracy. After its enactment it has undergone several amendments.
The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and, by its creative
and innovative interpretation, has been the protector of our constitutional rights and
fundamental freedom.
These judgements are to be appreciated not only as precedents, but also as having
laid down the law on issues of paramount importance—law that is binding on all courts
and authorities in the country.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Main theme: Propagating the ‘basic structure’ doctrine as a safeguard against the
usurpation of the Constitution.
It was unique for the reason that it brought a shift in the balance of democratic power.
Earlier judgements had taken a stand that Parliament could amend even the
fundamental rights through a proper legislative process. 
 
But the present case held that Parliament can not amend or alter the fundamental
structure a ‘Basic Structure’ of the constitution.
Besides, Kesavananda Case was significant in that the Supreme Court ascribed to
itself the function of preserving the integrity of the Indian Constitution.
The ‘basic structure’ doctrine formulated by the court represented the pinnacle of
judicial creativity and set a benchmark for other constitutional courts around the world.
The doctrine ruled that even a constitutional amendment could be invalidated if it
impaired the essential features—the basic structure—of the Constitution.
Evolution of the Basic structure doctrine
Since the adoption of Indian Constitution, debates have started regarding the power of
the Parliament to amend key provisions of the Constitution.
In the early years of Independence, the Supreme Court conceded absolute power to
Parliament in amending the Constitution, as was seen in the verdicts in Shankari
Prasad case (1951) and Sajjan Singh case (1965).
 
This means Parliament had the power to amend any part of the constitution
including Fundamental rights.
However, in the Golaknath case (1967), the Supreme Court held that Parliament could
not amend Fundamental Rights, and this power would be only with a Constituent
Assembly.
 
The Court held that an amendment under Article 368 is "law" within the meaning
of Article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment "takes away or
abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void.
To get over the judgments of the Supreme Court in the Golaknath case (1967), RC
Cooper case (1970), and Madhavrao Scindia case (1970), the then government
headed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had enacted major amendments to the
Constitution (the 24 , 25 , 26 and 29 ).
All the four amendments brought by the government were challenged in the
Kesavananda Bharati case.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Main theme: Expanding the meaning of the ‘right to life’ under the Constitution of India
The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 reads: ‘No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by
law”.
In other words, courts were not allowed to question any law—no matter how arbitrary
or oppressive—as violating the right to life or personal liberty if the law had been
suitably passed and enacted.
However, by vesting in itself the power of substantive review under Article 21, the
court transformed itself from being merely a supervisor, to being a watchdog of the
Constitution.
th th th th
The Supreme Court’s judgement in the Maneka Gandhi case effectively meant that
‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 would have the same effect as the
expression ‘due process of law’. 
 
In a subsequent decision, the Supreme Court stated that Article 21 would read
as: ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to fair, just and reasonable procedure established by valid law.
Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)
Main theme: Questioning the sanctity of personal religious laws and bringing the debate
on a Uniform Civil Code to the forefront of the national discourse.
In April 1985, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement on the maintenance a
divorced Muslim woman would be entitled to receive from her former husband in the
case of Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (Shah Bano).
It is seen as one of the milestones in Muslim women’s fight for rights in India and the
battle against the set Muslim personal law. It laid the ground for thousands of women to
make legitimate claims which they were not allowed before.
While the Supreme Court upheld the right to alimony in the case, the judgment set off a
political battle as well as a controversy about the extent to which courts can interfere in
Muslim personal law.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
Main theme: Delivering the decision relating to the constitutionality of reservations under
the Constitution of India.
In the Indra Sawhney judgment (1992), the Court upheld the government’s move and
proclaimed that the advanced sections among the OBCs (i.e, the creamy layer) must
be excluded from the list of beneficiaries of reservation. It also held that the concept of
creamy layer must be excluded for SCs & STs.
The Indra Sawhney verdict also held there would be reservation only in initial
appointments and not promotions. 
 
But the government through this amendment introduced Article 16(4A) to the
Constitution, empowering the state to make provisions for reservation in matters
of promotion to SC/ST employees if the state feels they are not adequately
represented.
The Supreme Court in the judgement also capped the reservation quota at 50%.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Main theme: Innovating jurisprudence to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace.
In the context of sexual harassment of women at workplace, judicial activism reached
its pinnacle in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (Vishaka).
The judgement was unprecedented for several reasons: 
 
the Supreme Court acknowledged and relied to a great extent on international
treaties that had not been transformed into municipal law;
the Supreme Court provided the first authoritative definition of ‘sexual
harassment’ in India; and confronted with a statutory vacuum, it went creative and
proposed the route of ‘judicial legislation’.
Since there was no legislation in India related to sexual harassment at the workplace,
the court stated that it was free to rely on the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW—signed by India in 1980) in
interpreting Articles 14, 15, 19 and 215 of the Constitution. 
To justify its decision the court referred to several sources including the Beijing
Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary, a decision of the
High Court of Australia and its own earlier decisions.
The Supreme Court set out the following significant guidelines:
The employer and/or other responsible people in a workplace are duty-bound to
prevent or deter sexual harassment and set up processes to resolve, settle, or
prosecute in such cases.
For the first time in India, ‘sexual harassment’ was defined authoritatively. 
 
The definition includes ‘such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether
directly or by implication) such as: physical contact and advances, a demand or
request for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, and
any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature’.
All employers or persons in charge of workplaces must strive to prevent sexual
harassment and, if any act amounts to a specific offence under the Indian Penal Code,
1860 or any other law, they must take appropriate action to punish the guilty.
Even if the act is not considered a legal offence or a breach of service rules, the
employer should create appropriate mechanisms so that the complaint is addressed
and redressed in a time-bound manner.
This complaint mechanism must, if necessary, provide a complaints committee, a
special counsellor or other support service, such as assuring confidentiality. The
complaints committee should be headed by a woman, and at least half its members
must be women.
The employer must sensitize female employees to their rights and prominently notify
the court’s guidelines.
Even if a third party is responsible for sexual harassment, the employer must take all
steps necessary to support the victim.
The central and state governments should adopt suitable measures to ensure that
private sector employers implement the guidelines.
Page 5


Important Judgements of Independent India
Indian Polity
The Constitution of India, enacted in 1950, has been the cornerstone of India’s
democracy. After its enactment it has undergone several amendments.
The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and, by its creative
and innovative interpretation, has been the protector of our constitutional rights and
fundamental freedom.
These judgements are to be appreciated not only as precedents, but also as having
laid down the law on issues of paramount importance—law that is binding on all courts
and authorities in the country.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Main theme: Propagating the ‘basic structure’ doctrine as a safeguard against the
usurpation of the Constitution.
It was unique for the reason that it brought a shift in the balance of democratic power.
Earlier judgements had taken a stand that Parliament could amend even the
fundamental rights through a proper legislative process. 
 
But the present case held that Parliament can not amend or alter the fundamental
structure a ‘Basic Structure’ of the constitution.
Besides, Kesavananda Case was significant in that the Supreme Court ascribed to
itself the function of preserving the integrity of the Indian Constitution.
The ‘basic structure’ doctrine formulated by the court represented the pinnacle of
judicial creativity and set a benchmark for other constitutional courts around the world.
The doctrine ruled that even a constitutional amendment could be invalidated if it
impaired the essential features—the basic structure—of the Constitution.
Evolution of the Basic structure doctrine
Since the adoption of Indian Constitution, debates have started regarding the power of
the Parliament to amend key provisions of the Constitution.
In the early years of Independence, the Supreme Court conceded absolute power to
Parliament in amending the Constitution, as was seen in the verdicts in Shankari
Prasad case (1951) and Sajjan Singh case (1965).
 
This means Parliament had the power to amend any part of the constitution
including Fundamental rights.
However, in the Golaknath case (1967), the Supreme Court held that Parliament could
not amend Fundamental Rights, and this power would be only with a Constituent
Assembly.
 
The Court held that an amendment under Article 368 is "law" within the meaning
of Article 13 of the Constitution and therefore, if an amendment "takes away or
abridges" a Fundamental Right conferred by Part III, it is void.
To get over the judgments of the Supreme Court in the Golaknath case (1967), RC
Cooper case (1970), and Madhavrao Scindia case (1970), the then government
headed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had enacted major amendments to the
Constitution (the 24 , 25 , 26 and 29 ).
All the four amendments brought by the government were challenged in the
Kesavananda Bharati case.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Main theme: Expanding the meaning of the ‘right to life’ under the Constitution of India
The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 reads: ‘No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by
law”.
In other words, courts were not allowed to question any law—no matter how arbitrary
or oppressive—as violating the right to life or personal liberty if the law had been
suitably passed and enacted.
However, by vesting in itself the power of substantive review under Article 21, the
court transformed itself from being merely a supervisor, to being a watchdog of the
Constitution.
th th th th
The Supreme Court’s judgement in the Maneka Gandhi case effectively meant that
‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 would have the same effect as the
expression ‘due process of law’. 
 
In a subsequent decision, the Supreme Court stated that Article 21 would read
as: ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to fair, just and reasonable procedure established by valid law.
Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)
Main theme: Questioning the sanctity of personal religious laws and bringing the debate
on a Uniform Civil Code to the forefront of the national discourse.
In April 1985, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement on the maintenance a
divorced Muslim woman would be entitled to receive from her former husband in the
case of Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (Shah Bano).
It is seen as one of the milestones in Muslim women’s fight for rights in India and the
battle against the set Muslim personal law. It laid the ground for thousands of women to
make legitimate claims which they were not allowed before.
While the Supreme Court upheld the right to alimony in the case, the judgment set off a
political battle as well as a controversy about the extent to which courts can interfere in
Muslim personal law.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
Main theme: Delivering the decision relating to the constitutionality of reservations under
the Constitution of India.
In the Indra Sawhney judgment (1992), the Court upheld the government’s move and
proclaimed that the advanced sections among the OBCs (i.e, the creamy layer) must
be excluded from the list of beneficiaries of reservation. It also held that the concept of
creamy layer must be excluded for SCs & STs.
The Indra Sawhney verdict also held there would be reservation only in initial
appointments and not promotions. 
 
But the government through this amendment introduced Article 16(4A) to the
Constitution, empowering the state to make provisions for reservation in matters
of promotion to SC/ST employees if the state feels they are not adequately
represented.
The Supreme Court in the judgement also capped the reservation quota at 50%.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Main theme: Innovating jurisprudence to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace.
In the context of sexual harassment of women at workplace, judicial activism reached
its pinnacle in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (Vishaka).
The judgement was unprecedented for several reasons: 
 
the Supreme Court acknowledged and relied to a great extent on international
treaties that had not been transformed into municipal law;
the Supreme Court provided the first authoritative definition of ‘sexual
harassment’ in India; and confronted with a statutory vacuum, it went creative and
proposed the route of ‘judicial legislation’.
Since there was no legislation in India related to sexual harassment at the workplace,
the court stated that it was free to rely on the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW—signed by India in 1980) in
interpreting Articles 14, 15, 19 and 215 of the Constitution. 
To justify its decision the court referred to several sources including the Beijing
Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary, a decision of the
High Court of Australia and its own earlier decisions.
The Supreme Court set out the following significant guidelines:
The employer and/or other responsible people in a workplace are duty-bound to
prevent or deter sexual harassment and set up processes to resolve, settle, or
prosecute in such cases.
For the first time in India, ‘sexual harassment’ was defined authoritatively. 
 
The definition includes ‘such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether
directly or by implication) such as: physical contact and advances, a demand or
request for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, and
any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature’.
All employers or persons in charge of workplaces must strive to prevent sexual
harassment and, if any act amounts to a specific offence under the Indian Penal Code,
1860 or any other law, they must take appropriate action to punish the guilty.
Even if the act is not considered a legal offence or a breach of service rules, the
employer should create appropriate mechanisms so that the complaint is addressed
and redressed in a time-bound manner.
This complaint mechanism must, if necessary, provide a complaints committee, a
special counsellor or other support service, such as assuring confidentiality. The
complaints committee should be headed by a woman, and at least half its members
must be women.
The employer must sensitize female employees to their rights and prominently notify
the court’s guidelines.
Even if a third party is responsible for sexual harassment, the employer must take all
steps necessary to support the victim.
The central and state governments should adopt suitable measures to ensure that
private sector employers implement the guidelines.
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)
Main Theme: Accepting passive euthanasia as being constitutional
Passive euthanasia is a condition where there is withdrawal of medical treatment with
the deliberate intention to hasten the death of a terminally-ill patient.
The Aruna Shanbaug case triggered debate of Euthanasia in India.
A writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court of India was filed, asking for
the legalisation of euthanasia so that Aruna’s continued suffering could be terminated
by withdrawing medical support.
Supreme court in 2011 recognised passive euthanasia in this case by which it had
permitted withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from patients not in a position to make
an informed decision.
Subsequent to this, in a landmark judgment (2018), the Supreme Court recognised
passive euthanasia and “living will”.
 
A ‘living will’ is a concept where a patient can give consent that allows
withdrawal of life support systems if the individual is reduced to a permanent
vegetative state with no real chance of survival.
Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)
Main Theme: Struck down as unconstitutional Section 8(4) of the Representation of the
People Act (RPA)-1951 that allowed convicted lawmakers a three-month period for filing
appeals to the higher court and to get a stay on the conviction and sentence.
Section 8 of the RPA deals with disqualification on conviction for certain offences: A
person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for varying terms
under Sections 8 (1) (2) and (3) shall be disqualified from the date of conviction and
shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. 
 
But Section 8 (4) of the RP Act gives protection to MPs and MLAs as they can
continue in office even after conviction if an appeal is filed within three months.
The Supreme Court held that chargesheeted Members of Parliament and MLAs, on
conviction for offences, will be immediately disqualified from holding membership of the
House without being given three months’ time for appeal, as was the case before.
The Bench found it unconstitutional that convicted persons could be disqualified from
contesting elections but could continue to be Members of Parliament and State
Legislatures once elected.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017)
Main Theme: SC ruled that Fundamental Right to Privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty and
thus, comes under Article 21 of the Indian constitution.