Author: toahostinger

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) – Fundamental Rights vs. Directive Principles Summary:This early post-independence case clarified that Fundamental Rights prevail over Directive Principles in case of conflict—shaping how courts would interpret the Constitution for decades to come. Background: The State of Madras had introduced a caste-based reservation policy in educational institutions. Seats in government-run colleges were allocated based on community and caste quotas, following what was known as the Communal Government Order (Communal G.O.). Champakam Dorairajan, a Brahmin woman, was denied admission to a medical college despite higher marks, solely because of the quota system. She challenged this in the Madras High Court, arguing that the policy violated her Fundamental Right to equality (Article 15). The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. Legal Issues Raised: Does the caste-based reservation policy violate the Right to Equality under Article 15(1)? Can Directive Principles of State Policy (like promoting educational and economic interests of backward classes under Article 46) justify limiting Fundamental Rights? What happens when a Directive Principle conflicts with a Fundamental Right? Supreme Court’s Key Observations: Fundamental Rights Are Supreme: The Court ruled that the reservation policy violated Article 15(1), which prohibits discrimination based on caste, religion, race, or sex. Directive Principles Cannot Override Fundamental Rights: Although the government had justified the policy using Article 46, a Directive Principle, the Court held that Directive Principles are non-justiciable and cannot infringe upon enforceable Fundamental Rights. Balance Must Be Maintained: While Directive Principles guide the State in policymaking, they must not conflict with or violate Fundamental Rights. Impact of the Judgment: This case prompted the First Constitutional Amendment in 1951, which added Article 15(4) to enable special provisions for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. It triggered a long-standing debate about the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, which continues in Indian legal discourse. Champakam Dorairajan remains a foundational judgment in shaping India’s affirmative action policies and constitutional interpretation.

Berubari Union Case (1960) – Clarifying the Power to Alter India’s Territory Summary:This case clarified how territorial changes involving India require a constitutional amendment, not just an agreement or executive action—establishing a vital precedent for future border-related decisions. Background: After India’s independence, certain border disputes remained unresolved, especially between India and Pakistan. One such area was the Berubari Union, a small region in West Bengal near the India-East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) border. Under the Indo-Pak Agreement of 1958, India agreed to transfer parts of the Berubari region to Pakistan. This created a constitutional dilemma: Can Indian territory be ceded to another country through a simple executive agreement? Or does it require a constitutional amendment? To resolve this, President Rajendra Prasad sought the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution. Legal Issues Raised: Can the Indian government cede territory to a foreign country merely by executive action or legislation? Is a constitutional amendment under Article 368 required for such territorial transfers? What is the role of Article 3, which deals with the creation or alteration of states? Supreme Court’s Key Observations: Territory Cannot Be Transferred Without Amendment: The Court held that territorial integrity of India cannot be altered by executive action alone. A constitutional amendment is necessary if Indian territory is to be ceded to a foreign country. Article 3 Does Not Apply: Article 3 empowers Parliament to alter internal boundaries of states, not to cede land to another country. Hence, it couldn’t be used in this context. People’s Will Matters: The Court emphasized that territory is held by the Union on behalf of the people, and their consent must be expressed through constitutional mechanisms—not bypassed through executive decisions. Impact of the Judgment: This case laid down the procedure for altering India’s territory—requiring an amendment to the Constitutionunder Article 368. It ensured that the government cannot bypass Parliament or the Constitution when dealing with national borders or sovereign territory. The ruling later influenced other cases involving enclaves and land exchanges, including the India-Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement of 2015, which followed the proper constitutional process.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) – Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right In this historic judgment, the Supreme Court declared privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, forever shaping how individual liberty and personal data are treated in modern India. Background: The case began with a challenge to the Aadhaar scheme, where citizens were required to provide biometric and demographic information to receive government benefits. Retired Justice K.S. Puttaswamy filed a petition, arguing that compulsory data collection violated citizens’ privacy. As the case progressed, a larger constitutional question emerged: Is the right to privacy protected under the Constitution? Earlier judgments had ruled that privacy was not a guaranteed right, which meant that Aadhaar or similar programs could not be challenged on that basis. To settle this, a 9-judge Constitution Bench was formed. Legal Issues Raised: Is the right to privacy a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution? If yes, under which provisions is it protected—Article 21, Article 19, or others? What are the limits and scope of this right in relation to State action and technological advancement? Supreme Court’s Key Observations: Privacy Is Inherent in Article 21: The Court unanimously ruled that the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Overruled Earlier Judgments: It overruled the M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) cases, which had denied the existence of a fundamental right to privacy. Privacy Includes Multiple Dimensions: The right to privacy includes: Bodily autonomy Personal choices Control over personal information Sexual orientation Freedom of thought and expression Limits of the Right: Like other rights, privacy is not absolute. It can be restricted if: There is a legitimate State interest The restriction is proportionate There are legal safeguards in place Impact of the Judgment: This ruling became the foundation of digital rights in India, influencing laws related to data protection, surveillance, and technology. It directly impacted the Aadhaar verdict, narrowing the scope of where Aadhaar could be made mandatory. It reinforced that dignity, autonomy, and individual choice are central to the Indian Constitution. The case is often compared to landmark global privacy judgments, placing India among countries recognizing privacy as a key constitutional value.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) – Limits on President’s Rule & Strengthening Federalism This landmark case placed important checks on the misuse of President’s Rule under Article 356, reinforcing the principles of secularism and federalism as part of the Constitution’s basic structure. Background: Article 356 of the Constitution allows the President to impose President’s Rule in a state if there’s a breakdown of constitutional machinery. However, over the years, this provision had been frequently misused by the central government to dismiss state governments—often for political reasons. In 1989, the Janata Dal-led government in Karnataka was dismissed by the Centre, which claimed that the state had lost its majority. Similar dismissals happened in Meghalaya, Nagaland, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh. S.R. Bommai, the dismissed Chief Minister of Karnataka, challenged the decision. This led to a pivotal case in Indian constitutional law. Legal Issues Raised: Can the President’s decision under Article 356 be reviewed by the courts? What constitutes a “breakdown of constitutional machinery” in a state? Can the President dismiss a state government without testing its majority on the floor of the Assembly? Supreme Court’s Key Observations: Judicial Review Allowed: The Court ruled that the President’s proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. Courts can strike down such proclamations if they are found to be mala fide or unconstitutional. Floor Test is Mandatory: The majority of a state government must be tested on the floor of the Assembly, not decided by the Governor or Centre. A government cannot be dismissed solely based on subjective reports. Secularism is a Basic Feature: The Court reaffirmed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. If a state acts against secular values, the Centre can intervene. However, the ground must be constitutionally valid. Federalism Strengthened: The judgment emphasized federal principles—states have their own sphere of governance and cannot be arbitrarily dismissed. Restoration of Government Possible: If the dismissal is found invalid, the dismissed state government can be reinstated, even after fresh elections have been conducted. Impact of the Judgment: This case set clear constitutional boundaries on the use of Article 356. It curbed political misuse of President’s Rule and strengthened democracy at the state level. Reinforced the idea that India is a Union of States, not a unitary system. It remains a safeguard for state governments against unjust interference by the Centre.

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) – Judicial Review Cannot Be Taken Away Summary:This judgment reaffirmed that any law—even if placed in the Ninth Schedule—is open to judicial review if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution. Background: The Ninth Schedule was originally introduced by the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) to protect land reform laws from being struck down by courts for violating Fundamental Rights. Laws placed in this schedule were shielded from judicial review under Article 31B. Over the decades, however, Parliament began placing all kinds of laws—many unrelated to land reforms—under the Ninth Schedule. Critics argued that this was being misused to bypass the Constitution, avoid scrutiny, and suppress Fundamental Rights. In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court was asked to decide: Can Parliament put any law in the Ninth Schedule and make it immune from judicial review, even if it violates fundamental rights? Legal Issues Raised: Are laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) immune from judicial review? Can laws that violate Fundamental Rights be protected by simply adding them to the Ninth Schedule? Is judicial review part of the basic structure of the Constitution? Supreme Court’s Key Observations: Judicial Review is Part of the Basic Structure: The Court ruled that judicial review—the power of the courts to examine laws for their constitutionality—is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be removed or diluted. Ninth Schedule Not a Safe Haven: Any law placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment) must pass the basic structure test. If it violates core constitutional values, it can be struck down. Protection Is Not Automatic: Just because a law is in the Ninth Schedule doesn’t mean it’s automatically valid. It will be tested for compliance with Fundamental Rights and basic structure principles like equality, freedom, and rule of law. Impact of the Judgment: This ruling placed a constitutional check on Parliament’s power. It sent a clear message: no law can escape judicial scrutiny, even if shielded by the Ninth Schedule. The decision upheld the sanctity of Fundamental Rights and strengthened the role of the judiciary as the protector of the Constitution. It also put an end to the trend of misusing the Ninth Schedule to give unconstitutional laws blanket protection, ensuring a balance between legislative intent and constitutional values.

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) – Parliament Cannot Amend Fundamental Rights Summary:This case declared that Fundamental Rights are beyond the reach of Parliament’s amending power, marking a significant moment in protecting individual liberties from legislative overreach. Background: The Golaknath family owned a large stretch of agricultural land in Punjab. Under state land reform laws, some of their land was declared “surplus” and taken away by the government. They challenged this move, arguing that it violated their Fundamental Rights, particularly: Right to property (Article 19(1)(f)) Right to equality (Article 14) The central question became: Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368? Legal Issues Raised: Does Parliament have the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights? Can Fundamental Rights be limited or taken away using constitutional amendments? Supreme Court’s Key Observations: Fundamental Rights are Sacrosanct: The Court ruled by a narrow majority (6:5) that Parliament cannot amend or abridge Fundamental Rights. Amendment vs. Law: The judgment treated a constitutional amendment as a “law” under Article 13(2). This meant any amendment that violated Fundamental Rights would be void. Article 368 Not an Absolute Power: The Court held that Article 368 only lays down the procedure for amendment, not the power itself. The power must still respect the limitations of Article 13. Impact of the Judgment: Temporary Freeze on Amendments to Fundamental Rights: Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights was significantly limited. Prompted the 24th Constitutional Amendment (1971): In response, Parliament amended the Constitution to clarify that it does have the power to amend any part, including Fundamental Rights. This set the stage for the Kesavananda Bharati case, where the basic structure doctrine was born. Debate on Legislative Power and Individual Rights: This case started a constitutional tug-of-war between the legislature’s powers and judiciary’s role as guardian of Fundamental Rights.

Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) – Reinforcing the Balance Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles Summary:This landmark case reaffirmed that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot destroy its basic structure. It struck a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy, ensuring neither dominates the other. Background: The Minerva Mills Ltd. case emerged during the post-Emergency period, when questions about the extent of Parliament’s amending power came under sharp scrutiny. In 1975, the government took over Minerva Mills, a sick industrial firm, under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act. The owners challenged this move, leading to a broader constitutional debate. At the heart of the case were two major constitutional amendments passed during the Emergency: 42nd Amendment, which: Gave supremacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights. Stated that amendments could not be questioned in court. Expanded Parliament’s powers under Article 368. Legal Issues Raised: Can Parliament use its power to amend the Constitution in a way that eliminates or reduces judicial review? Can Directive Principles override Fundamental Rights? Do such sweeping changes violate the basic structure of the Constitution? Supreme Court’s Key Observations: Parliament’s Power is Limited: The Court struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment that gave Parliament unlimited power to amend the Constitution. It ruled that judicial review and Fundamental Rights are essential features of the Constitution and form part of its basic structure. Balanced Coexistence: The Court emphasized a harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. They are both essential to India’s constitutional framework, and neither can be sacrificed for the other. Struck Down Sections of 42nd Amendment: Section 4 and Section 55, which curtailed judicial review and made Directive Principles superior, were held unconstitutional. Impact of the Judgment: Reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine first laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case. Prevented the misuse of constitutional amendments to suppress individual liberties. Cemented the judiciary’s role as a guardian of the Constitution. Preserved the delicate balance between welfare goals (Directive Principles) and personal freedoms (Fundamental Rights).