Landmark Judgements that shaped India: An analysis

Author: Tarini Aleti, Pendakanti law college.

A judgment is the ruling made in a case after considering the arguments of both parties in the lawsuit. It serves a crucial function by granting rights and responsibilities to the parties whose rights have been violated. Thus, it pertains to the particular person wearing a suit. However, there are certain judgments that have effects beyond the particular case, potentially altering legal provisions or establishing new principles. Occasionally, when a widely accepted custom is deemed valid and legal globally, and a new ruling declares it illegal, it can become a landmark decision, and the opposite can also occur. When legal provisions are complex and a judgment clarifies that provision, it becomes a landmark ruling.

Suppose that: currently, the constitution does not recognize homogeneous marriage as valid, but hypothetically, in the future, if public opinion shifts and the constitution evolves to deem homogeneous marriage acceptable, it would reflect the rights of individuals to marry whomever they choose, as it is their freedom and decision. This would be a significant ruling as it altered the viewpoint and had a profound impact on legal principles, introducing a new provision in the law.

In concise, a landmark judgement has widespread repercussions or lasting impression in the legal principles or public policies. And something which is a change or new resolution which removes the olden perspectives of the people. A ruling characterized by comprehensive and detailed analysis, which establishes a new and significant principle, is recognized as a landmark judgment. Landmark judgements are pronounced by the Supreme court and the High courts. 

Now let's explore some of the landmark judgements that shaped India: 

The most commonly referenced case and the most significant ruling that every legal aspirant should be familiar with is this judgment. It established a new doctrine known as the "basic structure." This case is notable for its extensive duration, spanning 68 days of proceedings, and for being adjudicated by one of the largest benches in history, consisting of 13 judges. To determine the principles of right and wrong, this bench analysed over 70 national constitutions and referenced more than 100 legal precedents.

Historical Background: Following our attainment of independence, resources and means of production were accessible only to a select group of individuals. It became evident that the concentration of wealth among certain individuals was inappropriate, prompting all states within the nation to seek amendments to existing laws. The government of Kerala also aimed to rectify socio-economic conditions by abolishing the Zamindari system, land ownership, and tenancy laws. To this end, the Kerala government enacted the Land Reform Act of 1963 under the leadership of EMS. This legislation was designed to redistribute land from large landowners to the landless and impoverished, as well as to grant ownership rights to tenants. The Act imposed limitations on the amount of property an individual could possess, with surplus property allocated to those without land or in poverty. Additionally, the Kerala government instituted restrictions on land ownership by religious institutions.

Facts of the case: 

The petitioner named Keshavananda Bharati, who was head man of institution for monks, nuns etc located in Edneer belonging to religious sects in Kasaragod district of Kerala. Keshavananda (i.e. petitioner) possesses some plots of land in that religious mutt. Hence, he is the owner.  Due to Kerala Land Reforms Act introduced by the Kerala Government The government had the right to obtain certain land owned by the petitioner through this act. Hence, he filed writ petition under Article 32 of Indian constitution for violation

• Article 19(1)(f) (right to protect against his property)

• Article25(the liberty of conscience and the entitlement to practice, profess, and disseminate religion for every citizen)

• Article 26(grants religious denominations the authority to govern their own matters, which encompass Overseeing their own religious practice)

• Article 31 (compulsory acquisition of property but now repealed)

The state government enacted the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 while the petition was still under process of review.

Prior to this, In the landmark case of Golaknath v. State of PunjabThe Supreme Court ruled that Parliament does not have unlimited or absolute authority to amend the Constitution under Article 368. The Court determined that the power to amend the Constitution is not entirely unfettered, and as such, certain restrictions were imposed on Parliament's ability to exercise this power. This decision marked a significant shift, as it limited the scope of Parliament’s authority in constitutional amendments, ensuring that the basic structure of the Constitution remains protected.

 Issues:

The court was entrusted with evaluating the constitutional validity of the 24th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1971, the 25th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1972, and the broader question of the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. This case raised an important and fundamental issue regarding whether the power vested in Parliament to amend the Constitution is without limits. The central concern was whether Parliament could modify, alter, or even abolish any part of the Constitution, including provisions that safeguard fundamental rights, potentially undermining their protection. The outcome of this case would have significant implications for the balance of power between Parliament and the Constitution itself.

Arguments of the Petitioners:The petitioners argued that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited and should be subject to certain restrictions. They maintained that any attempt to alter the Constitution in a manner that erodes or disturbs its fundamental structure is not permissible. This principle, they pointed out, was established in the Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan case. Additionally, they contended that both the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments infringed upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f), particularly the right to property.

Arguments of the Respondents:On the other hand, the respondents argued that the supremacy of Parliament is a core principle of the Indian legal system, which grants Parliament the broad and extensive power to amend the Constitution. They emphasized that the power to amend must be seen as virtually unrestricted in order for Parliament to fulfill its socio-economic obligations and responsibilities effectively. According to the respondents, limiting this power would hinder Parliament's ability to address the changing needs of the nation.

Judgment: After considering the arguments presented and referencing various legal precedents, the consensus emerged that Parliament holds the power to amend any provision of the Indian Constitution to fulfill its socio-economic obligations, as promised in the Preamble to the Constitution. However, such amendments must not alter the fundamental structure of the Constitution. This judgment clarified that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot tamper with its basic principles.

Conclusion: Before this ruling, there was ongoing debate between the legislature and the executive regarding their powers over constitutional amendments. While the Supreme Court had previously suggested that Parliament lacked unlimited power to amend the Constitution, this judgment clarified that the "basic structure" of the Constitution, including it’s defining The characteristics such as "SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC" are immutable. This ruling has had a profound impact, ensuring that the integrity of the Constitution is preserved against potential overreach by Parliament.

Historically, acts of sodomy have been criminalized, resulting in widespread discrimination against individuals, particularly in countries where religious beliefs strongly influence laws. This discrimination is still prevalent in many regions today, especially in parts of Africa and Asia. However, attitudes toward homosexuality have gradually evolved. A significant milestone was reached with the pivotal decision in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India., which was the first judicial decision to decriminalize homosexuality in India.

Facts of the Case:Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), introduced in 1860 by Lord Macaulay, criminalized "carnal intercourse against the order of nature," including consensual same-sex relationships. In the 2009 case Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court declared Section 377 unconstitutional, marking a milestone in the fight for LGBTQ rights in India. The Supreme Court subsequently reversed this ruling in the case of Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013. The petitioners, including Navtej Singh Johar, challenged the constitutionality of Section 377, arguing that it violated Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court took up the case due to its significant importance.

Issues: The primary issue was whether Section 377, as it applied to consensual sexual conduct between adults, was unconstitutional, and whether the Supreme Court should reverse the judgment in Suresh Kumar Koushal.

Arguments of Petitioners:The petitioners argued that sexual orientation is a natural, intrinsic part of an individual’s identity, and criminalizing consensual same-sex relationships violates fundamental rights, specifically Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. They referenced the Puttaswamy case, which established the right to privacy as a fundamental right.

Arguments of Respondents:The respondents contended that it was for the Court to determine the legality of consensual acts between adults in private. Some intervenors advocated for retaining Section 377, citing concerns about societal morality and arguing that the law should target the acts rather than the individuals involved.

Judgment: The Supreme Court unanimously declared Section 377 unconstitutional as it applied to consensual sexual conduct between adults in private. The Court emphasized that the right to privacy includes the right to make intimate choices, and criminalizing same-sex acts violated this right, as well as Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

Conclusion: This ruling affirmed that individuals within the LGBTQ community are entitled to equal protection under the law, and that laws must not discriminate based on inherent characteristics like sexual orientation. The judgment was a monumental step in recognizing the rights of the LGBTQ community in India, acknowledging sexual orientation as an essential aspect of personal identity. It underscored the supremacy of constitutional rights over societal prejudices, while highlighting the importance of dignity, privacy, and autonomy in protecting personal freedoms. As the German philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said, "I am what I am, so take me as I am," and similarly, Arthur Schopenhauer stated, "No one can escape from their individuality." These quotes underscore the idea that individuals should be accepted for who they are, and society must evolve to ensure that no one is judged for their identity. Parents, too, have the responsibility to teach their children to respect the inherent dignity of all individuals, fostering an environment of understanding and equality.

The Vishaka case signifies a pivotal ruling by the Supreme Court of India, wherein the Court formulated guidelines aimed at safeguarding women from sexual harassment in professional environments.

Facts of the Case Incident: The case stemmed from the brutal gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan who had been working to prevent child marriages. In retaliation for her efforts to stop the marriage of a minor girl, she was violently assaulted by five upper-caste men in front of her husband.

Hardships Faced: Bhanwari Devi faced significant institutional apathy. The police refused to file a First Information Report (FIR) or conduct a thorough investigation, and the medical authorities failed to document the rape properly in her report. Despite these barriers, she continued to seek justice.

Trial Court: The trial court acquitted the defendants, citing a lack of "concrete evidence" and casting doubt on the plausibility of the incident, including questioning why her husband did not intervene during the attack.

Supreme Court: Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, Vishaka, an NGO, and other organizations filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution. The PIL highlighted the absence of a legal framework to address sexual harassment in India and pointed to the violation of constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21. The Supreme Court was urged to establish guidelines in the absence of specific legislative provisions.

Judgment: In response, the Supreme Court issued the Vishaka Guidelines, which were the first comprehensive set of rules to combat sexual harassment in Indian workplaces. These guidelines defined sexual harassment and placed responsibility on employers to prevent and address incidents of harassment. They also mandated the formation of Internal Complaints Committees (ICC), consisting primarily of women, to handle complaints. The guidelines were to remain in effect until appropriate legislation was enacted.

The Court also recognized that sexual harassment violated women's fundamental rights to equality, life, and liberty under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.

Conclusion: The Vishaka case was a turning point in the struggle for gender equality and women’s protection in the workplace. It emphasized the need for a safe and respectful work environment and laid the foundation for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly known as the POSH Act. This case demonstrated judicial activism, where the Court stepped in to protect fundamental rights in the absence of legislative action. Despite the progress made, workplace harassment remains a persistent issue, and complaints of sexual harassment in India have risen significantly in recent years. The case continues to influence discussions about women’s rights and workplace safety.

These judgements gave a significant impact in various ways by providing equality and ensuring public safety as it is the main role which is played by the judiciary. The independence of the judiciary is the main key for such growth in the nation and for providing such judgements. A judgment is essential for an individual as it safeguards their rights and freedoms. The primary objective of initiating a lawsuit is to obtain relief, which is ultimately provided through the judgment. For law students, it is crucial to study judgments thoroughly. A judgment is rendered after both parties present their legal arguments, considering all relevant legal perspectives, leading to a conclusion that is equitable and justifiable for all members of society. Arriving at such a conclusion necessitates strong legal reasoning, effective listening skills, and professionalism. A landmark judgment serves as a precedent for future similar cases. Under Article 145(3) of the Indian Constitution, when a case presents a "substantial question of law" concerning constitutional interpretation, it is required that a minimum of five judges form a bench to hear and resolve the legal question. This bench is referred to as a constitutional bench, allowing for diverse judicial opinions and thorough analysis of the case in relation to the legal question at hand.

Download Document: