75 Landmark Supreme Court Judgments: Part I | Celebrating 75 Years of India's Supreme Court

This year marks 75 years since the establishment of the Supreme Court. Since its inception, the Supreme Court has pronounced many landmark judgments that became the cornerstone for testing the fundamental rights violations under Part III of the Constitution. We look at the 75 significant judgments of the Supreme Court through a three-part series.Interpretation of Fundamental rights, basic structure In I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the court held that fundamental rights could not be abridged or taken away by an amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution. This overruled two judgments in Sri Sankari Prasad Deo v. UOI & State of Bihar (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) which had held that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution is absolute and unfettered and extend to amending Part III. In Sankari Prasad, the Court had also held that 'law' in Article 13(2) did not include the amendments to the Constitution because they were in the exercise of constituent powers and therefore the constitutional amendments could not be held to be violative of Part III. This was reiterated in Sajjan Singh. However, in Golaknath the Court held that 'law' under Article 13 included amendment under Article 368. Soon after Golaknath, the 24th Constitution Amendment added Article 13(4) which stated that nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under Article 368.This was settled in Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973) in which the Supreme Court 13-judge bench held by 7-6 that the Constitution can be amended but its basic features, including Part III, must survive. It overruled Golaknath in terms of stating that constitutional amendment is not law within Article 13(2).Application of basic structure- judicial review, independence of judiciary, power of amendment The basic structure doctrine is said to evolve from case-to-case basis. For instance, in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Court held that the amendment made to Article 329A through sub-clauses (4) and (5) through the 39th Constitution Amendment which sought to place the election of the President, the Vice President, the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond judicial review was held to be unconstitutional. It held that judicial review is the basic feature of the Constitution. Another case where the Court reiterated judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution was I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors (2007). In this, the Supreme Court held that it is not permissible for the Parliament to immunize legislations from fundamental rights by inserting them into the 9th Schedule and thereof, from the judicial review of the court.In Minerva Mills & Ors v. UOI (1980), the Constitution validity of the 42nd Amendment, 1976 was challenged for excluding judicial review for constitutional amendments. This was held to be violative of the basic structure. It was stated that the power of amendment under Article 368 is not unfettered and is limited by basic structure. In 2015, in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association & Ors v. UOI, the Supreme Court declared the National Judicial Commission (NJAC) unconstitutional for violating the Basic Structure of the Constitution of India. Through this, they declared the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act unconstitutional while Justice Chelameswar upheld it. Through the 99th Constitutional Amendment, Article 124A was added.The NJAC was introduced to replace the Collegium System through which judges are appointed under Articles 124 (Supreme Court) and 217 (High Courts) respectively.Article 124A(1) provided for the constitution and the composition of the NJAC. It was composed of the following: (a) the Chief Justice of India, Chairperson, ex officio; (b) two other senior Judges of the Supreme Court, next to the Chief Justice of India – Members, ex officio; (c) the Union Minister in charge of Law and Justice – Member, ex officio; (d) two eminent persons, to be nominated – Members.The majority judgment led by Justice JS Khehar observed: “ I have independently arrived at the conclusion, that clause (c) of Article 124A(1) is ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution, because of the inclusion of the Union Minister in charge of Law and Justice as an ex officio Member of the NJAC. Clause (c) of Article 124A(1), in my view, impinges upon the principles of "independence of the judiciary", as well as, "separation of powers". It has also been concluded by me, that clause (d) of Article 124A(1) which provides for the inclusion of two "eminent persons" as Members of the NJAC is ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution, for a variety of reasons. The same has also been held as violative of the "basic structure" of the Constitution.”In S.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr (1981) (first judges case), the Supreme Court held that the word 'consultation' under Article 217 did not mean 'concurrence'. If it amounted to concurrence, then it would mean that the CJI...

75 Landmark Supreme Court Judgments: Part I | Celebrating 75 Years of India's Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags