I. C. Golaknath & Ors v. State Of Punjab & Anrs. 1967 AIR 1643 In a land mark judgment Supreme Court made it clear that no constitutional amendments can be made on the part III of the constitution and there by fundamental rights cannot be abridged by the legislature. By this pronouncement the Supreme Court has retraced its own judgment in Shankari Prasad case and Sajjan Singh vs. state of Rajasthan case that the fundamental rights can be amended.
To remove the difficulties in the process the government in the 24th amendment amended article 368 empowering the legislature the power to amend the constitution.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State Of Kerala And Anr. on 24 April, 1973, Writ Petition (civil) 135 of 1970 In this landmark judgment Supreme Court first kicked the Hornet’s nest in the name of the basic structure of constitution. In this case the Golaknath case was over ruled and parliament regained the power of amending but Supreme Court explicitly said that the legislature by virtue of the amending power cannot change the basic structure of the constitution. But what constitutes the basic structure was not specified. To remove the constitutional hurdles in an amendment the government inserted clause 4 and 5 in the article 368 which mentions that limited power of amendment is a basic structure of constitution.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India on 25 January, 1978, 1978 AIR 597 Just, Fair and Reasonable.
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors on 31 July, 1980, 1980 AIR 1789 In this case the Supreme Court over ruled that amending power is a basic structure of constitution. By this time the legislative and the judiciary in India were at loggerheads.
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, on 4 May, 1979, 1979 AIR 1819
In Re: The Berubari Union And … v. Unknown on 14 March, 1960, AIR 1960 SC 845
State v. Ram Singh and another, Unique ID No. 02406R0020522013, SC No. 114/2013
Pandurang, Tukia And Bhillia v. The State Of Hyderabad on 3 December, 1954, 1955 AIR 216
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration on 20 December, 1979, 1980 AIR 1579 In this case Supreme Court reinterpreted the writ of Habeas corpus as not only producing a person in the court but also preventing a person jailed from the inhuman treatment in the prison.
Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President,… vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1995, 1995 AIR 153
K. M. Nanavati vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 November, 1961, 1962 AIR 605 This case is notable for being the last case when a jury trial was held in India. KM Nanavati, a naval officer, murdered his wife’s lover, Prem Ahuja. The jury ruled in favour of Nanavati and declared him “not guilty” which was eventually set aside by the Bombay High Court.
M. C. Mehta vs. the state of Tamil Nadu, 1991 AIR 417
In this case Supreme Court not only pronounced that deployment of children in hazardous factories is unlawful but also provided various guidelines for the children welfare.