Major Legal Judgements (1961 -2022) | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Few Landmark Judgements through the years

From Aarushi Talwar murder to Ajmal Kasab death sentence, our judiciary has been at its finest in declaring verdicts over the years.

1. Jury decision overturned by High Court (KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra) - 1961

Hardly an open-and- shut case, the nature of the crime garnered media attention. 

• This case is notable for being the last case when a jury trial was held in India. KM Nanavati, a naval officer, murdered his wife's lover, Prem Ahuja. 
• The jury ruled in favour of Nanavati and declared him as 'guilty'; which was eventually set aside by the Bombay High Court.

• Essence: Commander Nanavati was tried for the murder of his wife's lover. The jury acquitted him, but the High Court overturned the verdict, leading to the abolition of jury trials in India.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

2. Amendment masquerades as law (IC Golaknath v State of Punjab) - 1967

Parliament is prevented from taking away individual rights. 

• In the famous case Golaknath V State of Punjab in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights of individuals mentioned in the Constitution. Parliament's overarching ambitions nipped in the bud (Keshavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala) 1973.

• Essence: Challenged the 17th Constitutional Amendment's validity, which curtailed fundamental rights. The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights.

• Articles related: Article 13 (Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights to be void), Article 368 (Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution).

3. Elected representatives cannot be given the benefit of doubt

• A highly notable case which introduced the concept of basic structure of the constitution of India and declared that those points decided as basic structure could not be amended by the Parliament. 
• The case was triggered by the 42nd Amendment Act.

4. Beginning of the fall of Indira Gandhi (Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain) - 1975

The trigger that led to the imposition of emergency. 

• In this landmark case regarding election disputes, the primary issue was the validity of clause 4 of the 39th Amendment Act. The Supreme Court held clause 4 as unconstitutional and void on the ground that it was outright denial of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14. 
• The Supreme Court also added the following features as “basic features” laid down in Keshavananda Bharti case – democracy, judicial review, rule of law and jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32.

• Essence: Indira Gandhi's election was challenged for electoral malpractice. The High Court found her guilty, leading to the imposition of Emergency and subsequent legal and political ramifications.

• Articles related: Article 329 (Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters).

5. A step backward for India (ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla Case) - 1976

Widely considered a violation of Fundamental Rights.

• In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court declared that the rights of citizens to move the court for violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 would remain suspended during emergencies. 
• Triumph of individual liberty (Maneka Gandhi vs UOI) 1978.

• Essence: During Emergency, the Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights, including the right to life, could be suspended. This case raised debates on individual rights versus state power.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), Article 359 (Suspension of the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III during emergencies).

6. Overlapping zones of laws rectified thanks to a writ petition 

• The case caused a huge uproar over the definition of Freedom of Speech. The court ruled that the procedure must be fair and the law must not violate other Fundamental Rights.

7. Parliament limited by itself (Minerva Mills v Union of India) - 1980 

• In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India in 1980 strengthened the doctrine of the basic structure which was propounded earlier in the Keshavananda Bharti Case. 
• Two changes which were made earlier by the 42nd Amendment Act were declared as null and void by the Supreme Court in this particular case.

• Essence: Examined amendments affecting judicial review. Supreme Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment, affirming judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution.

• Articles related: Article 13 (Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights to be void), Article 368 (Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution).

8. Constitutional validity of individual rights upheld (Waman Rao v Union of India) - 1981 

SC ruled that Parliament had transgressed its power of constitutional amendment.

• This case was a landmark decision in the constitutional jurisprudence of India. This case has helped in determining a satisfactory method of addressing grievances pertaining to the violation of fundamental rights by creating a fine line of determination between the Acts prior to and after the Keshavananda Bharati case.

• Essence: Tested the constitutional validity of land reforms laws in Karnataka. Court upheld state's power to enact land reforms while protecting property rights.

• Articles related: Article 31 (Compulsory acquisition of property by the State), Article 300A (Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law).

9. Maintenance lawsuit sets precedent (Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum) - 1985

Shah Bano won the right to get alimony from her husband. 

• The petitioner challenged the Muslim personal law. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Shah Bano and granted her alimony. 
• Most favoured it as a secular judgment but it also invoked a strong reaction from the Muslim community, which felt that the judgment was an encroachment on Muslim Sharia law and hence led to the formation of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board in 1973.

• Essence: Landmark case on maintenance for divorced Muslim women. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shah Bano, sparking debates on personal laws versus fundamental rights.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 44 (Uniform Civil Code).

10. MC Mehta v Union of India - 1986

Mounting environment-related concerns. 

• A PIL filed by MC Mehta in 1986 enlarged the scope and ambit of Article 21 and Article 32 to include the right to healthy and pollution-free environment.

• Essence: Environmental PIL leading to the closure of hazardous industries in Delhi. Set precedent for environmental protection through judicial activism.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), Article 48A (Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife).

11. Reservation in central government jobs (Indra Sawhney v UOI November) - 1992 

Attempt to correct historic injustices constitutionally. 

• The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court held in this matter that caste could be a factor for identifying backward classes.

• Essence: Case on reservation in central government jobs. Supreme Court upheld reservations but capped quotas at 50%, setting guidelines for reservation policies.

• Articles related: Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment), Article 335 (Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts).

12. Wrangle over Supreme Court judge appointments (Supreme Court Advocates-on- Record - Association and another versus Union of India) - 1993 

• The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act and Constitutional amendment Act passed in 2014 aimed at replacing the collegium system of appointing Supreme Court judges. 
• The act was struck down as unconstitutionalby the Supreme Court in October 2015.

• Essence: Case on judicial appointments. Court upheld the primacy of the judiciary in appointing judges, establishing the Collegium system.

• Articles related: Article 124 (Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court), Article 217 (Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court).

13. Power of President's Rule curtailed (SR Bommai v Union of India) - 1994

Persecution of state governments stalled. 

• This landmark case had major implications on Center-State relations. Post this case the Supreme Court clearly detailed the limitations within which Article 356 has to function.

• Essence: Examined the misuse of President's Rule. Supreme Court set guidelines restricting the Centre's power to dismiss state governments.

• Articles related: Article 356 (Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States).

14. Scam-tainted politicians - 1997

The Jain Hawala case exposed bigwigs. 

• The Hawala scandal was an Indian political scandal involving payments allegedly received by politicians through four hawala brokers, the Jain brothers. 
• In 1991, an arrest linked to militants in Kashmir led to a raid on hawala brokers, revealing evidence of large-scale payments to national politicians. The prosecution that followed was partly prompted by a public interest litigation. Many were acquitted, partly because the hawala records (including diaries) were judged in court to be inadequate as the main evidence. 
• The high court decreed that the CBI had not brought on record any material which could be converted into legally admissible evidence.

15. Foundation for a female workforce (Vishaka v State of Rajasthan) - 1997 

Definition of sexual harrassment and guidelines to deal with it laid down. 

• In this case, Vishakha and other women groups filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against State of Rajasthan and Union of India to enforce fundamental rights for working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. 
• This resulted in the introduction of Vishaka Guidelines. The judgment of August 1997 also provided basic definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace and provided guidelines to deal with it. Hence the importance of the case as a landmark judgment.

• Essence: Case on sexual harassment at workplace. Supreme Court laid down guidelines (Vishaka Guidelines) for prevention and redressal of sexual harassment.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth).

16. Afzal Guru's death sentence sparked protests - 2002 

Awarded death sentence for role in 2001 Parliament attacks. 

• Afzal Guru was sentenced to death on February 2013 for his role in the December 2001 attacks on the Indian Parliament. The judgment faced widespread criticism on three grounds – lack of proper defense, lack of primary evidence and judgment based on collective conscience rather than rule of law.

• Essence: Case on the attack on Indian Parliament. Supreme Court upheld the death sentence, sparking debates on due process and terrorism laws.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

17. Justice deferred in Best Bakery case - 2003

Miscarriage of justice as a large number of witnesses turn hostile. 

• The Best Bakery was burned down, killing 14 people on March 1, 2002 as part of the 2002 Gujarat violence. 
• The Supreme court, in a rarest of rare case, ordered a re-trial outside of Gujarat in which nine out of the seventeen accused were convicted by a special court in Mumbai in 2006.

• Essence: Post-Godhra riots case. Supreme Court ordered retrial, highlighting delays and flaws in justice delivery.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Speedy Trial), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

18. State of Tamil Nadu V Suhas Katti - November 2004 

Short conviction time of seven months. 

• This was notable for being the first case involving conviction under the Information Technology Act, 2000. A family friend of a divorced woman was accused of posting her number online on messenger groups which led to her being harassed by multiple lewd messages. The accused was later convicted and sentenced.

• Essence: Case on electoral malpractice. Supreme Court ordered re-election, addressing electoral integrity.

• Articles related: Article 324 (Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission).

19. Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India - 2005

Dissolution of Bihar Assembly unwarranted. 

• In this case, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of a notification which ordered dissolution of the legislative Assembly of the state of Bihar. 
• The dissolution had been ordered on the ground that attempts were being made to cobble a majority by illegal means and lay claim to form the government in the state which if continued would lead to tampering with constitutional provisions.
•  The Supreme Court held that the aforementioned notification was unconstitutional.

• Essence: Anti-defection law case. Supreme Court upheld the disqualification of MPs under the Tenth Schedule.

• Articles related: Tenth Schedule (Provisions as to disqualification on ground of defection).

20. Victims of sexual assault or not? (Om Prakash v Dil Bahar) - 2006

Controversial ruling had many opponents. 

• The Supreme Court in the above case declared that a rape accused could be convicted on the sole evidence of the victim in spite of medical evidence not proving that it was rape.

• Essence: Case on victims of sexual assault. Supreme Court emphasized the need for evidence and victim protection.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth)

21. Priyadarshini Mattoo case - October 2006

14-year- old fight for justice gets results. 

• In this matter the Supreme Court had commuted the death sentence awarded to prime accused Santosh Singh (son of former IPS officer), to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of the 23- year-old law student, Priyadarshini Mattoo.

• Essence: Case on rape and murder. Supreme Court ordered retrial, addressing judicial accountability.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Speedy Trial), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

22. Jessica Lal Murder Case - December 2006 

Civil society makes big gains. 

• A model in New Delhi working as a bartender was shot dead and the prime accused Manu Sharma, son of Congress MP Vinod Sharma who was initially acquitted in February 2006 was later sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2006 by a fast track hearing by the Delhi High Court. On 19 Apr 2010, the Supreme Court of India approved the sentence.

• Essence: Case on murder of Jessica Lal. High-profile trial leading to public outcry and judicial scrutiny.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

23. Sanjay Dutt plays prisoner in real life - 2007

Conviction under TADA changed to under the milder Arms Act.

• Well-known actor Sanjay Dutt was sentenced to five year imprisonment by the Supreme Court for illegal weapons possession in a case linked to the 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai. 
• The Supreme Court also cited that the circumstances and nature of offence were too serious for the 53-year- old actor to be released on probation.

Sanjay Dutt entering the TADA court, in 2007

24. Nithari serial murders - 2009  

Koli was served with multiple death sentences. 

• A Special Sessions Court awarded death sentence in 2009 to Surinder Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher for the murder of a 14-year- old girl. The murders believed to have been committed through 2006 involved instances of cannibalism. 
• Pandher was later acquitted by the Allahabad High Court and was released on bail but Koli’s death sentence was upheld by both the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.

• Essence: Serial killings in Nithari, Uttar Pradesh. Highlighted law enforcement and public safety issues.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

25. Aarushi Talwar murder - 2008 

Verdict delivered under unusual circumstances. 

• A case which received heavy media attention involved the double murder of 14-year- old Aarushi Talwar and her 45-year- old domestic help in Noida. 
• After five years a Sessions court convicted both her parents Rajesh and Nupur Talwar and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

• Essence: High-profile murder case. Controversial investigation and trial.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

26. Section 377 case (Naz Foundation v Govt of NCT of Delhi) - July 2009 

Cause for rejoicing for homosexuals. 

• In 2009 the Supreme Court declared Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as unconstitutional. The said section earlier criminalised sexual activities “against the order of nature” which included homosexual acts. This judgment however, was overturned by the Supreme in December, 2013.

• Essence: Section 377 case. Delhi High Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth).

27. Meagre closure for controversial Ayodhya - (Ayodhya Ram Mandir Babri Masjid Case) - September 2010

Ruled that the land was to be divided into three parts. 

• The high court of Allahabad had ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid was situated before it was demolished in 1992 shall be divided into three parts. Two-thirds of the land was to be awarded to the Hindu plaintiffs and one-third to the Sunni muslim Waqf board.

Protest for the construction of Ram Temple in Ayodhya 

• Essence: Dispute over the Ayodhya site. Allahabad High Court's verdict on land division among Hindus and Muslims.

• Articles related: Article 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion), Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs).

28. Child sexual assault not to be taken lightly - 2011

Punishment not enough for child abusers. 

• The Supreme Court restored the conviction and sentence of six-year rigorous imprisonment imposed on two British nationals who were acquitted by the Bombay High Court in a paedophilia case.The Bench directed the accused to serve the remaining period of sentence. 
• In a landmark judgment the Supreme Court observed “Children are the greatest gift to humanity. The sexual abuse of children is one of the most heinous crimes”.

29. Vodafone cleared in tax battle (Vodafone - Hutchison tax case) - January 2012 

Landmark decision on taxability of offshore transactions. 

• The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Vodafone in the two-billion- dollar tax case citing that capital gains tax is not applicable to the telecom major. 
• The apex court also said that the Rs 2,500 crore which Vodafone had already paid should be returned with interest.

• Essence: Tax dispute on Vodafone's acquisition of Hutchison. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vodafone.

• Articles related: Article 265 (Taxes not to be levied save by authority of law), Article 300A (Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law).

30. Clean chit to Prime Minister Narendra Modi - 2012

Questions remains and victims of families yet to get closure.

• In April 2012 the Supreme Court appointed Special investigation Team (SIT) gave current Prime Minister Narendra Modi a clean chit in the post-Godhra Gulberg massacre case citing that it found no evidence against him. Narendra Modi went on to become the Prime Minister of India with a huge mandate.

• Essence: Allegations of Gujarat riots. Supreme Court upheld lower courts' decisions.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty).

31. Mohd Ajmal Amir Kasab v State of Maharashtra - 2012

One of the most high-profile executions in the country.

• The Supreme Court observed that the acts on November 26, 2008, had shaken the collective conscience of Indian citizens and had confirmed the death sentence awarded to prime accused Ajmal Kasab by the trial court and affirmed by the Bombay High Court, for waging war against India.

• Essence: Mumbai terror attack case. Supreme Court upheld death sentence for Kasab.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

32. NOTA Judgment - 2013

The right to reject candidates formalised. 

• In 2013, the Supreme Court introduced negative voting as an option for the country’s electorate. According to this judgment an individual would have the option of not voting for any candidate (None-Of- The-Above) if they don’t find any of the candidates worthy.

• Essence: Right to reject candidates in elections. Supreme Court introduced the option of 'None of the Above' in EVMs.

• Articles related: Article 324 (Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission), Article 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.).

33. Patent troubles of Pharma company Novartis (Novartis v Union of India & Others) - 2013

Case accused of dealing a death blow to innovation in medicine. 

• Novartis’ application which covered a beta crystalline form of imatinib, a medicine the company brands as 'Glivec' which is very effective against chronic myeloid leukaemia (a common form of cancer) was denied patent protection by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
• The Supreme Court in its ruling upheld the board’s decision which eventually led to the medicine being made available to the general public at a much lower cost.

• Essence: Patent case on cancer drug. Supreme Court denied patent, impacting pharmaceutical patent laws.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), Article 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.).

34. Illegalising convicted MPs and MLAs (Lily Thomas v Union Of India) - July 2013

Effected much-needed cleansing of legislative bodies.

• The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, ruled that any member of Parliament (MP), member of the legislative assembly (MLA) or member of a legislative council (MLC) who was convicted of a crime and awarded a minimum of two-year imprisonment, would lose membership of the House with immediate effect.

• Essence: Disqualification of convicted MPs and MLAs. Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act.

• Articles related: Article 102 (Disqualifications for membership).

35. Uphaar fire tragedy (Sushil Ansal vs State Thr Cbi) - March 2014

Split judgment couldn't reach a decision on sentencing.

• August 2015 Eighteen years after 59 people were killed in a fire in Delhi’s Uphaar cinema, the Supreme Court held that the prime accused did not necessarily need to go back to jail as they were fairly aged. 
• The court further held that “ends of justice would meet” if the accused paid Rs 30 crore each as fine.

• Essence: Fire in Uphaar cinema, Delhi. Supreme Court dealt with liability and compensation issues.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), Article 32 (Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III).

36. Nirbhaya case shook the nation - March 2014

The judiciary spurred into action and laws were strengthened for sex offenders.

• Four out of the five accused in the horrific gang- rape case of Nirbhaya were convicted and given the death sentence. 
• The case also resulted in the introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 which provides for the amendment of the definition of rape under Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973; the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

• Essence: Brutal gang-rape case. Supreme Court upheld death penalty for the convicts.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

37. Recognising the Third gender (National Legal Services Authority v Union of India) - April 2014

Third gender acknowledged as citizens with rights. 

• In a landmark judgment the Supreme Court in April, 2014 recognised transgender persons as a third gender and ordered the government to treat them as minorities and extend reservations in jobs, education and other amenities.

• Essence: Recognition of third gender. Supreme Court recognized transgender as a third gender.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth).

38. Section 66A revised (Shreya Singhal v Union of India) - March 2015 

Cracking down on 'offensive' online content not easy.

• Controversial section 66A of the Information Technology Act which allowed arrests for objectionable content posted on the internet was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in March 2015.

• Essence: Section 66A case. Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being unconstitutional.

• Articles related: Article 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.).

39. Yakub Memon sentenced to death (Yakub Abdul Razak Memon V State of Maharashtra and Anr) - July 2015 

No reprieve for the accused in 1993 Mumbai serial blasts. 

• Yakub Abdul Razak Memon was convicted and sentenced to execution by hanging in March 2015 for his involvement in the 1993 Bombay serial blasts. His conviction sparked a nationwide debate on capital punishment in India.

• Essence: Mumbai blasts case. Supreme Court upheld death sentence for Yakub Memon.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

40. Dance bars functional again - October 2015

After a gap of two decades, dance bars open. 

• The Supreme Court in July 2013 passed a judgment directing the state government to reopen dance bars in Maharashtra which had earlier been banned under the Maharashtra Police Act. The resultant ban by the Bombay High Court was stayed.

41. Triple Talaq Judgement (2016) 

• The SC outlawed the backward practice of instant ‘triple talaq’, which permitted Muslim men to unilaterally end their marriages by uttering the word “talaq” three times without making any provision for maintenance or alimony. Read about the Triple Talaq Bill, 2019.

• Essence: Case on instant Triple Talaq. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional, protecting women's rights.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth).

42. Right To Privacy (2017)

• The SC declared the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right protected under the Indian Constitution.

• Essence: Right to Privacy case. Supreme Court declared privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty).

43. Repealing Section 377 (2018) 

• The SC ruled that Section 377 was unconstitutional “in so far as it criminalizes consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex.”

• Essence: Section 377 case. Supreme Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth).

44. Alok Verma v. Union Of India  (2019)

• The Supreme Court has set aside the Central government’s order divesting Alok Verma of hispowers as Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

• While doing so, the Court also directed the High Power Committee to consider the matter afresh, and held that Alok Verma shall cease and desist from taking any major policy decision pending the Committee’s consideration.

• The Court has also set aside the order asking CBI Joint Director Nageshwar Rao to take over the duties of the CBI Director.

• Essence: Case on CBI Director's removal. Supreme Court reinstated Alok Verma with curtailed powers.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 311 (Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State).

45. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors. (2020)

• The Supreme Court marked 17 February, 2020 as an important date in the calendar of Indian Armed Forces. 
• For the first time since independence, the females belonging to the Indian Armed Forces will be granted permanent commission to serve in the army.
• The females had been struggling to attain this right for more than a decade. Justice DY Chandrachud, while delivering the judgment, stated that: ‘At the stage of opting for the grant of PC, all the choices for specialization shall be available to women officers on the same terms as for the male SSC officers. 
• Women SSC officers shall be entitled to exercise their options for being considered for the grant of PCs on the same terms as their male counterparts’.
• The judgment upheld the directive principle of equality by providing access to permanent commission to the female populace

46. Vikash Kumar v. UPSC 2021

• A bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna observed that the decision in V Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu would “not be a binding precedent”, after the coming into force of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. 
• The Bench in the same judgment also held that the facility of the scribe can be provided for persons with disabilities other than those having benchmark disabilities.

• Essence: Case on UPSC exam dispute. High Court ruled on eligibility criteria and selection process.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment).

47. Union of India v. KA Najeeb 2022 

• The apex court held that Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the ground of violation of the Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial.
• Bench: Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose

• Essence: Case involving national security and individual rights. Court balanced individual rights against state interests.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

48. Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022

• Reservation is not at odds with merit”; Here’s why SC upheld OBC reservation in NEET PG
  and UG Admissions in AIQ quota.

• Essence: Case related to constitutional rights. Details needed for specific elaboration.

• Articles related: Depends on the specifics of the case.