Important case laws in Constitutional law.

    It is difficult for students to recall case laws. It becomes even more difficult when each resource material has a different case law to prove a particular concept. When it comes to constitutional law, it can be tricky, and I always find it difficult to find suitable and important precedents to write down doctrines. That's why we have made a list of important case laws that should never forget.

1.Indrani sawhney v/s Union of India:

      Indra Sawhney v. Union of India is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that deals with the issue of reservation in public employment and education. The case was heard by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court and resulted in the famous Mandal Commission judgment.

       The case arose from a challenge to the government's policy of reserving a certain percentage of seats in public employment and educational institutions for members of certain castes and communities. The petitioners argued that the policy violated their fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, upheld the validity of the policy of reservation. However, the Court also imposed certain limitations on the extent of reservation. The Court held that reservation could not exceed 50% of the available seats or vacancies, and that the policy could not be extended to promotions.

    The Court also held that the policy of reservation should only be applied to those communities that are socially and educationally backward, and that the government should periodically review the list of such communities. The Court further directed that the policy of reservation should be implemented in a way that does not affect the efficiency of public services.

    The Indra Sawhney judgment has had a significant impact on the policy of reservation in India. The judgment has been both praised and criticized, with some arguing that the policy of reservation has helped address historical injustices and promote social justice, while others argue that it has led to discrimination against other communities and has not been effective in achieving its goals. Nonetheless, the judgment remains an important landmark in Indian constitutional law.

2. Kesavanada Bharati v/s Union of India :

     Kesavanda Bharati v. Union of India is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that was heard by a thirteen-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The case dealt with the issue of whether the Indian Constitution could be amended in a way that would fundamentally alter its basic structure.

    The case arose from a challenge to the government's attempt to amend the Constitution through the 24th Amendment Act of 1971. The amendment sought to place any law made by Parliament amending the Constitution beyond judicial review. The petitioners argued that the amendment would destroy the basic structure of the Constitution and violate the principles of democracy, secularism, and federalism.

    In a historic decision, the Supreme Court held that the basic structure of the Constitution was inviolable and could not be amended. The Court further held that the power to amend the Constitution did not include the power to destroy its basic structure.

    The judgment had far-reaching implications for Indian constitutional law. It established the basic structure doctrine, which holds that certain features of the Constitution, such as the sovereignty of India, democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law, are essential and cannot be abrogated by the government.

    The Kesavananda Bharati judgment has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become a cornerstone of the Indian constitutional law. It is widely regarded as one of the most significant cases in Indian legal history, as it affirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding it.

3. Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997):

    This case law deals with the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. The case was heard by the Supreme Court and resulted in the formulation of guidelines for preventing sexual harassment in the workplace.

    The case arose from an incident in which a social worker named Bhanwari Devi was gang-raped by upper-caste men in Rajasthan. Devi had been working as a saathin, a government-appointed volunteer who worked to prevent child marriages and promote girls' education. After the incident, Devi filed a complaint with the police, but no action was taken.

    The Vishaka judgment held that sexual harassment in the workplace violated a woman's fundamental right to gender equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and her right to live with dignity under Article 21. The Court further held that it was the duty of the employer to prevent and redress such harassment and that the absence of a law on sexual harassment in the workplace could not be used as an excuse for inaction.

    The Court then formulated guidelines for preventing and redressing sexual harassment in the workplace, which have since become known as the Vishaka guidelines. The guidelines require employers to take measures to prevent sexual harassment, including setting up a complaints committee and conducting awareness programs. The guidelines also provide for the complaint procedure, inquiry process, and penalties for sexual harassment.

    The Vishaka judgment has had a significant impact on Indian workplace culture, and it has been praised for giving women greater protection against sexual harassment. However, critics argue that the guidelines have not been adequately enforced and that there is still a long way to go in addressing sexual harassment in the workplace.

4.Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):

     Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that deals with the issue of personal liberty and procedural due process. The case was heard by the Supreme Court and resulted in the expansion of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

    The case arose from an incident in which Maneka Gandhi, an Indian politician, was issued a passport by the government, only to have it revoked a few days later. The government refused to give her any reason for the revocation, and Gandhi filed a writ petition challenging the decision.

    The Supreme Court held that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 was not limited to mere physical liberty, but also included the right to live with dignity and the right to travel abroad. The Court further held that the government's decision to revoke Gandhi's passport affected her personal liberty and that she was entitled to know the reasons for the revocation.

    The Court also held that the right to personal liberty was not an absolute right but could be restricted by law. However, any law that restricted the right had to be fair, just, and reasonable, and the procedure for enforcing the law has to be reasonable and provide for adequate safeguards.

5. State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal

     It is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that dealt with the issue of double jeopardy and the scope of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. The case was heard by a bench of judges led by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the Supreme Court of India.

    The case arose when the respondent, Mohan Lal, was charged with an offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing the death of his wife. The trial court acquitted him of the charge, but the state government filed an appeal before the High Court, which set aside the acquittal and convicted him for the same offense. Lal challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that it violated the principle of double jeopardy, which is guaranteed under Article 20 of the Constitution of India.

    Article 20 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be punished for the same offense more than once. The Supreme Court held that the conviction of Mohan Lal for the same offense, after he had been acquitted by the trial court, violated the principle of double jeopardy. The Court observed that the principle of double jeopardy was a fundamental right, which protected citizens from arbitrary and oppressive state action. The Court held that the state could not appeal against an acquittal on the grounds that it was not satisfied with the result, and that the acquittal was a bar to further prosecution for the same offense.

    The Court also observed that the principle of double jeopardy was not an absolute right, and that it was subject to certain exceptions. The Court held that a retrial could be permitted in cases where the acquittal was due to technical or procedural reasons, or where new evidence had come to light that was not available at the time of the original trial.

    The State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal judgment has been cited in subsequent cases and is widely regarded as an important judgment on the issue of double jeopardy in India. The judgment reinforces the principle that the state cannot punish a person for the same offense more than once and that the principle of double jeopardy is a fundamental right that must be protected.

    In conclusion, these cases represent some of the most significant and influential cases in Indian constitutional law. They have helped shape the legal landscape of the country and have ensured that the Constitution remains a living document. The above article will help you to remember prominent case laws, which has shaped our constitution.