We, the people of India: 8 decades on, key judgments that shaped our rights, freedoms

We want to speak

Shreya Singhal v Union of India, 2015

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech, as unconstitutional on grounds of violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

A two-judge bench of the top court held that the section was not protected under ‘reasonable restriction’ on the freedom of speech under Article 19(2).

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt Ltd v Union of India, 1986 

The Supreme Court ruling addressed whether imposing heavy import duties and auxiliary taxes on imported newsprint violated the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

The court held, “The expression ‘freedom of press’ has not been used in Article 19 of the Constitution but, as declared by this Court, it is included in Article 19 (1) (a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of the press means freedom from interference from authority which would have the effect of interference with the content and circulation of newspapers.” 

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, 1978

The landmark apex court ruling established that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and that Articles 14 (equality before law), 19 (right to freedom) and 21 (right to life and liberty) were interlinked and protected people against arbitrary state action.

The court held that depriving a person of life or personal liberty must be fair, just and reasonable, and not arbitrary or oppressive. The three articles together are also known as the ‘golden triangle’ of the Constitution. The court observed that the coexistence of these articles was essential to maintain an equilibrium for the protection of human rights.

We want to be ourselves

National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v Union of India, 2014

The key Supreme Court ruling recognised transgender persons as belonging to the ‘third gender’, affirming their fundamental right to self-identify their gender. The court also directed the Centre and state governments to treat transgender persons as socially and economically backward classes, and extend reservation in educational institutions and public appointments.

Justice K S Radhakrishnan said, “Seldom, our society realises or cares to realise the trauma, agony and pain which the members of the transgender community undergo, nor appreciates the innate feelings of the members of the Transgender community, especially of those whose mind and body disown their biological sex.”

“Our society often ridicules and abuses the Transgender community, and in public places like railway stations, bus stands, schools, workplaces, malls, theatres, hospitals, they are sidelined and treated as untouchables, forgetting the fact that the moral failure lies in the society’s unwillingness to contain or embrace different gender identities and expressions, a mindset which we have to change,” he added.

Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, 2018

The major Supreme Court verdict struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), decriminalising consensual sexual relations between adults. The five-judge bench ruled that “the choice of whom to partner, the ability to find fulfilment in sexual intimacies and the right not to be subjected to discriminatory behaviour are intrinsic to the constitutional protection of sexual orientation.” 

Clockwise from top left: Shayara Bano, whose case led to the strike down of instant triple talaq; activists after the verdict decriminalising consensual same-sex relations; Kesavananda Bharati, whose case affirmed the basic structure doctrine; and K S Puttaswamy, whose battle upheld privacy as a basic right.

Justice Indu Malhotra said, “History owes an apology to the members of this community and their families, for the delay in providing redressal… The members of this community were compelled to live a life full of fear of reprisal and persecution. This was on account of the ignorance of the majority to recognise that homosexuality is a completely natural condition, part of a range of human sexuality.”

Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India, 2017 

The crucial nine-judge constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The judgment recognised the significance of privacy to individual dignity, autonomy and liberty. 

The court held that “the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.”

We want to be treated equally

Shayara Bano v Union of India, 2017

The key Supreme Court judgment held that instant triple talaq or talaq-e-biddat is unconstitutional and invalidated the practice.

“It is clear that this form of Talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it. This form of Talaq must, therefore, be held to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” the court held.

“In our opinion, therefore, the 1937 Act, insofar as it seeks to recognise and enforce Triple Talaq, is within the meaning of the expression “laws in force” in Article 13(1) and must be struck down as being void to the extent that it recognises and enforces Triple Talaq,” it added.

Joseph Shine v Union of India, 2018

The Supreme Court ruling decriminalised adultery by striking down Section 497 of the IPC, which dealt with the criminal offence of adultery. The court held that it violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution and said, “A law which deprives women of the right to prosecute is not gender-neutral. Under Section 497, the wife of the adulterous male cannot prosecute her husband for marital infidelity. This provision is therefore ex facie discriminatory against women, and violative of Article 14.” 

Indian Young Lawyers Association v The State of Kerala (Sabarimala case), 2018

The significant judgment by the Supreme Court struck down the traditional ban on women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. A five-judge bench held that excluding women violated fundamental rights to equality and freedom of religion.

The judgment held, “In the theatre of life, it seems, man has put the autograph, and there is no space for a woman even to put her signature… The dualism that persists in religion by glorifying and venerating women as goddesses on one hand and by imposing rigorous sanctions on the other hand in matters of devotion has to be abandoned. Such a dualistic approach and an entrenched mindset result in indignity to women and degradation of their status.”

We want the state to protect us 

Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar, 1979

The Supreme Court verdict highlights the rights of prisoners and was among the early cases that shaped public interest litigation (PIL) jurisprudence in India. The top court held that every prisoner has a fundamental right to free legal aid and the right to a speedy trial.

“The State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide speedy trial to the accused by pleading financial or administrative inability. The State is under a constitutional mandate to ensure speedy trial and whatever is necessary for this purpose has to be done by the State,” the judgement stated.

MC Mehta v Union of India, 1988

The notable Supreme Court ruling directed industries, municipal authorities and boards under the Water Act to comply with environmental laws. It emphasised the responsibility of municipal authorities and industries to protect public health and prevent water pollution.

The judgment held that children “should be taught about the need for maintaining cleanliness of the houses, both inside and outside and of the streets in which they live. Clean surroundings lead to a healthy body and a healthy mind.” 

We want democracy

Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, 1973

The landmark ruling by the Supreme Court’s 13-judge bench upheld the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution and placed limits on the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368. It held that Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s basic structure or essential features.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain, 1975

The Supreme Court landmark ruling examined the constitutional validity of the 39th Amendment, which sought to place the election of prime ministers and other high constitutional office-holders beyond judicial scrutiny. The court struck down the relevant provisions, holding that free and fair elections and the rule of law form the Constitution’s basic structure.

The court held, ”No objection can accordingly be taken to the constitutional validity of the two impugned Acts on the ground that they damage or destroy the basic structure. The power to pass these Acts could be exercised retrospectively as much as prospectively.”

Subramanian Swamy v Election Commission of India, 2013

The Supreme Court’s pathbreaking judgment ruled that a paper trail is indispensable for free and fair elections, and directed the Election Commission to implement the voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) system with Electronic Voting Machines in a phased rollout. The court recognised the voter’s right to know that their vote has been correctly recorded and counted.

The court permitted the ECI to introduce the same in gradual stages or geographically in the ensuing general elections. It held that the area, state or actual booth(s) are to be decided by the ECI and the poll panel is free to implement the same in a phased manner. 

We want to coexist

Ayodhya verdict, 2019

The Supreme Court’s crucial ruling handed over the disputed land (2.77 acres) to build the Ram Janmabhoomi temple. The court also granted an alternative five acres of land in another place to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board for building a mosque as a replacement for the demolished Babri Masjid. It concluded that “belief of Hindus since prior to construction of Mosque and subsequent thereto has always been that Janmaasthan of Lord Ram is the place where Babri Mosque has been constructed which faith and belief is proved by documentary and oral evidence discussed above.”

The judgment held, “The belief and faith of Hindus that the place of Ram Janma Bhumi, as is worshipped on date, is the place of worship, which is being spoken through ancient scriptures and lakhs of Hindus are carrying that belief from ancient period…Mahant Ram Chandra Das Digamber appeared as a witness for the plaintiff in Suit No 5, he stated that the birth of Lord Ram at Ayodhya is proved by the descriptions in our Vedas, Upnishads, Smhitas, Smritis, etc.”