--> >-->
  • Top 11 Supreme Court Judgements that Strengthen Fundamental Rights: UPSC Prelims 2020

    Supreme Court of India

    Here we came up with the top most Supreme Court of India Judgements that strengthen the fundamental rights, and help the citizens to achieve more and more. This data is also helpful for the students preparing for UPSC and other competitive exams as these are some of the most important S.C. cases judgements that are continuously asked in different competitive exams. If you like it please let us know in comment section. 

    Important S.C. Judgements

    1. Champakam Dorairanjan v/s U.O.I (1950)

    F.R. Important than DPSP

    1st CAA 1951:

    Article 15(4) - state can make special provisions for SC/ST.

    2. M.R. Balaji v/s State of Mysore (1962) 

    Reservation should not exceed 50% Limit.

    3. Indira Sawhney v/s U.O.I (1993)

    50% limit continued

    Reservation is only for initial appointments Only in government institutions.

     77th CAA 1995:

    Article 16(4-A) - Reservation is for both appointments and promotion

     81st CAA 2000:

    Article 16 (4-B) - Backlogs will not be merged with general 50%

     93rd CAA 2006:

    Article 15 (5) - Private, state aided, state unaided in every educational Institution reservation is compulsory.

    4. M.Nagraj v/s U.O.I (Challenged Newsprint Regulation Policy 1973)


    We cannot interfere until it is not violation basic structure doctrine

    5. Amrita Mills Case

     S.C. Can use 'Doctrine of Eclipse' in pre constitutional laws only, post constitutional laws will become null & void.

    6. Maneka Gandhi v/s G.O.I (1978)

     Word 'Life' in Article 21 is "Living with choice and dignity" It is not just breathing.

    This used in Francis Corallie Muekkin v/s U.T. Of Delhi.

    7. P.Rathinam Case (1994)

    (Challenged section 309 of IPC - attempt to suicide   is a punishable offence)

    Does right to die comes under Article 21?

    Right to not to live is also Fundamental right.

    So, sec 309 of IPC should not be a punishable offence.

    8. Gian Kaur Case 2005

    Overruled P. Rathinam Case

    One has right not to live but only in natural death. It is not in

    ·         Criminal Death

    ·         Accidental death

    ·         Not natural death

    9. Gaurav Jain v/s U.O.I (1992)

     Capacity Building of children is states duty for that state should made Child development committee, Juvenile centre etc.

    10. M.C. Mehta v/s State of Tamil Nadu

    Child labour case

    Less than 14-year old child does not employ as domestic servant.

    11. IYLA v/s State of Kerala ( Sabrimala Case )

    Followers of Lord Ayappa doesn't come under Religious denomination because they don't have Essential Religious Practice.

    So, Lord Ayappa followers doesn't come under Article 26 they come under Article 25.

    They have to allow women entry.


  • You might also like

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Give your valuable feedback.
    If you have any doubts. Please let me know