Over the past 75 years, Supreme Court judgments have played a key role in nation-building—by defending the Constitution, enlarging personal liberty, and putting principled limits on state power. From declaring that the Constitution’s core cannot be rewritten at will, to reading due process, dignity, and privacy into the routines of daily life, the Court has translated lofty ideals into working rules. It has checked executive excess in turbulent moments, insisted that both elections and emergencies answer to law, and steadied the federal balance when partisanship threatened to tilt it. By opening its doors to the marginalized through public-interest litigation, rights moved from paper to practice. Taken together, these decisions have shaped how India is governed and how Indians live—with freedoms that are real, and institutions that learn to think in constitutional terms.
Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973)
A 13-judge bench—the largest in Indian judicial history—heard the matter across months and, by a 7–6 majority, laid down the “basic structure doctrine.” The Court accepted that Parliament’s power under Article 368 is broad, yet held it cannot be used to damage the Constitution’s essential framework—democracy, secularism, federalism, the rule of law, and judicial review among them. In doing so, it preserved a living balance between change and continuity.
What it held: Parliament may amend any provision, including fundamental rights, but cannot alter or destroy the Constitution’s basic structure.
Why it matters: Places guardrails against majoritarian overreach, ensuring core values cannot be dismantled by transient political majorities.
Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain (1975)
After the Allahabad High Court set aside the Prime Minister’s election for electoral malpractice, Parliament attempted to insulate that election from court scrutiny via the 39th Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the protective clause as incompatible with the Constitution’s basic structure—violating the rule of law, equality, free and fair elections, and judicial review. Applying contemporaneously amended election laws, the Court ultimately preserved the result, but the principle it articulated was larger than the case.
What it held: Parliament cannot put the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial review or act as judge in its own cause.
Why it matters: Reaffirms that no office is above the law and that electoral integrity is foundational to constitutional democracy.
ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla (1976) — Habeas Corpus Case
At the height of the Emergency, a 4–1 majority held that courts could not entertain habeas corpus petitions when the right to life and personal liberty was suspended. Justice H.R. Khanna’s solitary dissent insisted that liberty is not extinguished by executive fiat. In later decades, the majority view was denounced and effectively overruled, with subsequent benches recognizing the primacy of due process even in crisis.
What it held: During the Emergency, the majority said detenus could not challenge preventive detention on fundamental-rights grounds.
Why it matters: A cautionary tale of unchecked power; later jurisprudence restored and entrenched liberty as non-negotiable.
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978)
When Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without a prior hearing, the Court reimagined Article 21: “procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary. It linked Articles 14, 19, and 21 into a due-process triad, requiring reasons and at least a post-decisional hearing except in narrowly justified circumstances.
What it held: Any law or action curtailing life or personal liberty must meet standards of fairness and reasonableness.
Why it matters: Became the bedrock of modern rights jurisprudence—from travel and livelihood to reputation and informational autonomy.
Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum (1985)
A 62-year-old divorced Muslim woman sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Court held that this is a secular remedy that applies regardless of personal law, entitling her to support beyond the iddat period. The ruling triggered a national debate, followed by legislation and later judicial interpretation that reaffirmed fair provision.
What it held: Section 125 CrPC protects indigent divorced wives of all faiths; maintenance is not limited by personal law alone.
Why it matters: Advanced gender justice, shaped discourse on secular protections, and influenced how personal law interacts with constitutional guarantees.
S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994)
The Court reined in the use of Article 356 by making proclamations of President’s Rule justiciable and by requiring that a government’s majority ordinarily be proven on the floor of the Assembly, not by gubernatorial report. It also recognized secularism as part of the basic structure.
What it held: Arbitrary dismissals of State governments are impermissible; floor tests are the norm; Governor’s reports are not conclusive.
Why it matters: Strengthened federalism and insulated elected State governments from partisan disruption.
Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan (1997)
In the absence of legislation on workplace sexual harassment, the Court issued binding guidelines under the Constitution and India’s international commitments, requiring preventive policies, awareness, and Internal Committees with external members. These remained in force until Parliament enacted the POSH Act, 2013.
What it held: Employers must institute robust mechanisms to prevent and redress workplace sexual harassment; guidelines had the force of law.
Why it matters: Marked a decisive step for workplace dignity and gender equality, eventually shaping comprehensive legislation.
K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (2017)
A unanimous nine-judge bench declared privacy a fundamental right, intrinsic to dignity, autonomy, and liberty. Any State intrusion must satisfy tests of legality, legitimate aim, proportionality, and procedural safeguards. The ruling reset constitutional thinking for a data-driven era.
What it held: Privacy is protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21; restrictions must meet strict constitutional tests.
Why it matters: Provides the constitutional basis for data protection, limits on surveillance, bodily autonomy, and decisional freedom.
Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018)
The Court decriminalized consensual same-sex relations among adults by reading down Section 377 IPC, grounding its reasoning in equality, expression, dignity, and the primacy of constitutional morality over social prejudice. Multiple concurring opinions converged on the same destination.
What it held: Adult, private, consensual same-sex relations are not a crime; constitutional morality prevails over stigma.
Why it matters: A watershed for LGBTQ+ rights and the promise of equal citizenship.
Indian Young Lawyers Assn. vs State of Kerala (2018)
By a 4–1 majority, the Court held that the exclusion of women aged 10–50 from the Sabarimala temple violated equality and dignity, and was not an essential religious practice. A broader reference on “essential practices” remains pending, but the 2018 ratio stands as the operative baseline.
What it held: Women of all ages have the right to enter Sabarimala; exclusion offends constitutional guarantees.
Why it matters: Places gender equality and constitutional morality at the heart of debates over faith and access.
M. Siddiq (D) vs Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. (2019)
A unanimous bench resolved the long-running title dispute by vesting the disputed land in a trust for a Ram temple and directing that an alternative five-acre plot be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for a mosque. The Court condemned both the 1949 idol placement and the 1992 demolition as illegal, and anchored its decision in evidence rather than faith alone, invoking Article 142 to craft an equitable settlement.
What it held: Title must rest on evidence; fashioned a final, balanced remedy under Article 142.
Why it matters: Brought closure to a conflict with deep social and political reverberations, while reaffirming that unlawful acts cannot found legal rights.
Conclusion
No single verdict built India; together, they did. By turning rights into remedies and ambition into accountability, the Supreme Court has kept the republic aligned with its founding promise and nudged it toward a fairer future. These decisions reveal a Court that is more than an interpreter of text: it is a constitutional guardian—of democracy and federalism, of social justice and equality, and of the everyday dignity that allows citizens to live freely under law.
