Landmark Judgments That Reshaped India
Key Supreme Court cases and case-reading concepts from Maneka Gandhi to Navtej Johar.
Keyboard Shortcuts
💡 Pro tip: Use keyboard shortcuts for faster studying!
Study Smart Tips for Landmark Judgments That Reshaped India
Master these concepts using proven study techniques that actually work:
Active Recall
Test yourself before flipping each card to strengthen memory retention
Spaced Repetition
Review difficult cards more frequently than easy ones
Multiple Sessions
Break study time into shorter, focused sessions
Explain Aloud
Verbalize answers to reinforce understanding
Questions Covered in This Set
11 cards to master
Why is the Constitution called a 'living document' in the context of judgments?
Because judges reinterpret unchanged text — e.g. Article 21 now covers privacy, clean air, shelter and dignity without any amendment.
What are the four parts of a judgment worth separating?
Facts (who fought about what), question of law, holding (decision and reasoning), and ratio (the binding principle).
Ratio decidendi vs obiter dicta
Ratio is the principle that binds future courts; obiter dicta are passing remarks that do not bind.
Why does bench strength matter?
A five-judge Constitution Bench can overrule a three-judge bench; only a larger bench can overrule it. A nine-judge bench signals the Court means to settle an issue for a generation.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Passport impounded without reason. Held: procedure under Article 21 must be 'right, just and fair', not arbitrary; Articles 14, 19 and 21 form a golden triangle read together.
What is the 'golden triangle'?
Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedoms) and 21 (life and liberty) read together, established in Maneka Gandhi (1978).
Shah Bano (1985) and its aftermath
Divorced Muslim woman granted maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, a secular provision. Parliament responded with the Muslim Women Act, 1986; in Danial Latifi (2001) the Court upheld that Act but read it to require fair and reasonable provision for life.
What does the Shah Bano episode teach about constitutional change?
The legislature can push back on a judgment and the judiciary can push back on the push-back — constitutional change is a conversation, not a single verdict.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
The Mandal case: a nine-judge bench upheld 27% OBC reservation in jobs, capped total reservations at ~50%, excluded the 'creamy layer', and barred reservation in promotions (later altered by the 77th Amendment).
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
After Bhanwari Devi's gang-rape, with no law on workplace sexual harassment, the Court read Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 with CEDAW and issued binding guidelines until the POSH Act, 2013.
The Section 377 sequence
Naz Foundation (Delhi HC, 2009) read it down; Suresh Kumar Koushal (SC, 2013) restored it, calling LGBT persons a 'minuscule minority'; Navtej Singh Johar (2018), a five-judge bench, unanimously overruled Koushal.
