Impact of Landmark Judgements

Author: Pragya, Atal Bihari Vajpayee School of Legal Studies, CSJMU.

This article argues that certain landmark judgments of the Supreme Court of India have had such a far reaching social impact that they have flushed out the constitutional values and nudged forward social justice. Not only the Supreme Court has further elaborated the Constitution but it has also paved the way for socio legal changes in the country making changes to the laws which are required in contemporary society. This continuous judicial activism further reaffirms the values of an independent judiciary in defense of democracy and the prevalence of well-established law.

Judicial Activism, Supreme Court, World Bank, Whitaker, Fundamental Rights, Article 21, Pollution Control Laws, Social Welfare, Women Empowerment, Social Justice, Reservation Policy, Economic Reforms. 

A crucial part of the Indian story has been the evolution of the legal system and a large part of this story has been written by the Indian judiciary. These judgments passed by the Supreme Court as well as various High Courts not only have created new legal landmarks but have also made Social Landmarks in the Indian Societies. Where there is lack of legislation, the courts have come in through interpreting the constitutional provisions which have become one of the best ways of encouraging the respect of the rule of law and a democratic society. India is growing at an unprecedented rate and with these two exceptionally significant judgements in particular, Indian courts are building a just society. This article gives an account of the impacts of the historic decisions, and as much as possible, tries to reconstruct some elements of the issues around the judges, when they were relevant and engineered, and the constitutional framing or connective tissue.

The provision of basic human rights is one of the primary features of the Indian Constitution which guarantees that all citizens have their rights protected from acts of the state. These decisions have not only fortified the constitutional protections but also aldre it, to ‘fit the pictures’ of modern society, consequently, the development of the principles and comprehension of the fundamental rights.

• Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

This is a landmark decision as it referred to the Article 21 of the Constitution right to life and personal liberty under a new light. The case emerged when the government held Meneka Gandhi’s passport and never allowed her to be heard on the matter. 

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, ruled that the right to life coupled with personal liberty is not the right only to spit out animal-like existence but the right to live with dignity. The Constitutional Compact was expanded when the Court held that any procedure established by law must be ‘‘just, fair, and reasonable’’ and through this the concept of ‘‘substantive due process’’ came into Indian Constitution. 

• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby legalised consensual same sex relationships. This law from the colonial era had been criminalizing sodomy making the gay community a subject of discrimination and harassment throughout the country.

This judgment paved the way towards establishing equality and non discrimination for the LGBTQ+ community in India, and ushered in a new change as the higher judiciary redefined itself as the conscience keeper of the society and found the laws of societies as archaic.

The judiciary has also had an especially important role of enlarging the contours of Article 21 to include several other rights for a dignified Life. For instance, the right to privacy was established as a fundamental right in the highly anticipated judgment of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). This means that privacy resides in the category of rights as the liberty interest and protectable component of Article 21.

Likewise, the right to litigation in case of environmental degradation is part of the right to life now in force. In cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. In writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court of India, the Hon’ble apex court has repeatedly asserted that ‘Protection of the environment’ is indeed an important dimension that must be considered for ‘a life with dignity’ for the citizens of this country and has passed a string of directions to the Union Government to take adequate measures to control pollutions and prevention of the environmental degradation.

This article presents the contribution of the Indian judiciary as an important cog in the wheel that balances the operations of the different arms of government. Interpreting the Constitution and exercising judicial review the Judiciary has played a constitutional watchdog role to make certain that the Constitution, especially the basic tenets of democracy, the supremacy of the Constitution and separation of powers are respected.

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

This historic judgment set the principle of Basic Structure which states that, even while amending the Constitution, the Parliament cannot amend the basic structure. 

The basic structure was defined by the Court with the help of certain features: the Constitution’s preeminence, the rule of law, the separation of powers and the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

This case related to the wrongful use of Article 356 of the Indian constitution which empowers The President to suspend/impose president's rule in a state when the state government fails to work per the constitution. The case emerged after the central government removed several state governments headed by the opposition through a breakdown of the constitutional structures.

Setting out guidelines for the use of the President’s Rule, the Supreme Court in its judgment also clearly pointed out that President’s Rule should not be resorted to except in extraordinary circumstances. The Court also ruled that the President’s satisfaction under Article 356 can be challenged in court and where the central government dismisses a state government, it must give sound reasons. 

This judgment bolstered the federal system of the country as it prohibited the central government to remove the state government. 

By way of implementing what has been said, the application of the principles of social justice has clearly been enhanced through the delivery of landmark judgments in the area of equality and the protection of human rights. The outcomes of these judgments have seen legislations enacted as well as the society being opened up to more equality in India.

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

This ruling in the case dealt with the matter of sexual harassment at the workplace something that had not been well provided for in Indian law. The absence of legal measures to tackle the cases of sexual harassment at the workplace motivated women lobbying organizations to seek a public interest litigation in Supreme Court.

In its judgment, The Court, relying on international conventions including CEDAW, pointed out that where domestic law fails to protect women, the court has a duty to fill that gap. 

• Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

It is also known as the Mandal Commission case. This case discussed the question of reservation of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the matter of government employment and education. The Mandal Commission was formed in 1979: it suggested the OBCs should get 27% reservation to correctCASTE injustice.

The Court also invented the ‘creamy layer’ principle to confine the OBC’s quota benefit to the really deserving sections by eliminating those who could otherwise/may otherwise be categorized as marginalized but are, in fact, economically well-off.

The judiciary has thus set out key environmental legal precedents and ensured that the government has proceeded to undertake actions to redress pollution and the environment. These judgments have made a fertile input in environmental jurisprudence in India, which further paves the way for sustainable development or for making sure that fundamental facets of the environment are not sidelined or ignored while formulating various policies.

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986)

This historic judgement emerges from a chain of public interest litigation (PIL) to be filed by M.C.Mehta to protect the environmental issues relating to air and water pollution, Industrial dangers and conservation of natural sources.

The Court for the first time in the Oleum Gas Leak case introduced the principle of “absolute liability Where an enterprise carries on a hazardous activity of operation and creates risk, that enterprise is absolutely liable for whatever harm may happen irrespective of any negligence on its part. This particular principle moved away from the original “strict liability” principle and provided a new higher level of responsibility for industries1.

• Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985)

It is also referred to as the Dehradun Valley Suit. This case looked at effects of limestone quarrying in the Mussoorie hills whereby the area was jointly covered up with vegetation, slope failure, and food production land.

According to the said verdict, the Supreme Court passed a restraining order against limestone quarries that affected the environment unfavourably while compelling the government to embark on reforestation/rehabilitation of affected areas. It highlighted the achievement of sustainable development and ensuring that resources were conserved for use by the future generations.

• Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000)

The Narmada Bachao Andolan v. The decision in the case of Union of India v/s Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation related to environment and human rights issues of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada river. The various facts before the court came from the petitioners, the people who represented the various affected communities hence claiming that the construction of the dam will bring about massive displacement and environmental degradation works.

Although the Supreme Court dawned the green signal for construction of the project, at the same time it also insisted on taking adequate precaution with regard to the rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected people. The Court ordered the government to make sure that the dispossessed people receive enough compensation and opportunities that will enable them to have a source of income. This judgment brought out the judiciary as the watchdog of environment and social effects of development projects.

Here are some of the most influential gender equality-based landmark judgments:

• Mary Roy v. State of Kerala (1986)

In this classic case Mary Roy, a women rights activist, fought for the operation of sections of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1916 that deprived Syrian Christian women of equal rights on inheritance. The Supreme Court upheld the case of Mary Roy to allow Syrian Christian women’s right to maintenance and half share in their father owned property3. This judgment was a glorious move towards gender-neutrality of laws of inheritance and any other gender justice matters concerning property.

• State of Kerala & Others: (1993) 2 SCC 276: AIR 1993 SC 477 State of Kerala (2018)

The Sabarimala Temple case was a historical decision that ended the debate concerning the same rights of operation between men and women. The Supreme Court held that the Ayyappa Temple’s ban on the entry of young women, for the reason that they are women of menstruating age, grossly violates their constitutional rights to equality as well as freedom of religion. This judgement was thus a landmark decision in the struggles for gender parity in religious practices and addressing of feminine mix- treatment in the course of Patriarchal repentance.

• In this case, National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014)

By this verdict, the Supreme Court admitted the transgender persons as third gender and protected their rights under the Indian constitution. The bench called upon the government to take measures to protect rights of the transgender persons and recognise their quota in education and employment. This judgment was a positive progress towards the claims for equality and human dignity for trans-sexed persons and gender equality.

These judgments have addressed various aspects of economic policy, corporate governance, and financial regulation, ensuring that the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability are upheld: 

• The famous international Case; Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India (2012)

The cross-border mergers acquisition taxes were also under discussion in the Vodafone case. The litigation finally settled in favor of Vodafone before the Supreme Court which held that there was no requirement for the company to pay capital gain tax to the government of India on the acquisition of Hutchison Essar. This judgment had direct repercussions on the field of foreign investment in India inasmuch as it gave a clear indication of the tax treatment to be given to cross-border transactions and reasserted the faint of legal certainty in tax matters. The judgment led the government to bring changes to tax laws to meet the expectations of the Court and to make the tax system less volatile for the foreign investors.

Here are some of the most influential criminal justice-based landmark judgments:

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)

One of them is the Bachan Singh case, which is the landmark judgement case dealing with the constitutional validity of this punishment. Judicial decision making for the death penalty took two forms: The Supreme Court declared the death penalty legal but limited the use of the punishment to the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases. The Court also appreciated how the death penalty should only be imposed where the prospect of a life imprisonment is definitely ruled out 1. This judgment has aimed to improve the status of the criminal justice system of the United State by taking to the legal application of the death penalty in only the most egregious cases- the concept of ‘merciful retribution’ .

• D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

In the D.K. Basu’s case, Supreme Court of India has given operational direction to avoid custodial torture and deaths. The case emerged from a PIL filed by D.K. Basu who had brought to the apex court notice of the general phenomenon of custodial violence. The Court’s guidelines encompassed arrest and detention rules and regulation that the member states were required to implement; these were; Must provide notice to family of detainee Must maintain arrest records Must conduct certain medical exams on detainee etc. These guidelines have made an impressive change on the criminal justice system by raising their transparency, accountability and recognition to detainees.

There are some important judgments rendered by the Indian judiciary which have proved to be important in reforming the electoral system in India. These judgments have addressed various aspects of electoral processes, transparency, and fairness, ensuring that the principles of democracy are upheld: 

• Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)

In the Lily Thomas case Supreme Court has laid down that when legislators are involved in corrupt practices especially in criminal activities they are thrown out of the legislature. It has influenced other electoral reforms through disqualifying people with criminal records from holding any office of power.

• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)

The S.P. Area matters of Appointment and Transfer of Judges came to be known as the Judges’ Transfer case. The case described how free and fair elections can only be achieved by an independent judiciary besides the check of the power among the branches of government.

In conclusion, a series of Landmark judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India has tremendously impacted the country’s legal as well as its social fabric. They have not only impacted on the development of the universal law and the commonwealth of legal knowledge, but also transformed cultures, generated and announced policy directions, and determined the security of people’s elementary rights. Therefore, decision-making by the Supreme Court of India facts indicate that landmark judgments have the potential to revolutionise Indian society. They have strengthened and protected the Constitution's platonic values and upheld issues of social justice through judicial activism, principle of federalism and environmentalism. These judgments remain part of the legal and social structures and development of the nation portraying the ROLE –Law Society Governance. Although the judiciary has been interpreting and enforcing the Constitution throughout the country for more than six decades of its independence, its contribution to turning the vision of a more just and fair society into reality cannot be dismissed. Each case has its unique importance. Each case has its unique importance.

1. : Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. 

2. : Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321.

3. : Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461. 

4. : S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.

5. : Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011. 

6. : Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 477.

7. : M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1086. 

8. : Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 652. 

9. : Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751.

10. : Mary Roy v. State of Kerala, AIR 1986 SC 1011. 

11. : Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, AIR 2018 SC 4907. 

12. : National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1863.

13. : Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India, AIR 2012 SC 50.

14. : Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898. 

15. : D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610.  

16. : Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2013 SC 2662. 

17. : S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.