Law books
Special Section

Future Lawyer's Library

Landmark Indian judgments — facts, ratio, obiter, exam & interview notes.

15 cases
Human Rights2018

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India

(2018) 10 SCC 1

Ratio: Consensual same-sex relations decriminalised.

Principle
Sexual orientation intrinsic to dignity and privacy.
"Constitutional morality cannot be martyred at the altar of social morality."
Civil Law2018

Common Cause v. Union of India (Passive Euthanasia)

(2018) 5 SCC 1

Ratio: Living will framework recognised.

Principle
Right to die with dignity is part of right to life.
"The right to live with dignity extends to a dignified death."
Constitutional Law2017

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India

(2017) 10 SCC 1

Ratio: Right to privacy is protected under Part III.

Principle
Proportionality standard for privacy restrictions.
"Privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity."
Cyber Law2015

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

(2015) 5 SCC 1

Ratio: Overbroad speech restrictions unconstitutional.

Principle
Vague laws chill fundamental speech rights.
"Discussion or advocacy is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a)."
Taxation2012

Vodafone International Holdings v. Union of India

(2012) 6 SCC 613

Ratio: Section 9(1)(i) did not cover indirect transfers pre-amendment.

Principle
Legitimate tax planning is permissible.
Criminal Law2010

Selvi v. State of Karnataka (Narco-analysis)

(2010) 7 SCC 263

Ratio: No such tests without consent.

Principle
Right against self-incrimination and mental privacy.
"Compulsory administration of narco tests violates the right against self-incrimination."
Consumer Law2000

Vishakhapatnam Port Trust — Consumer Protection

AIR 2000 SC 2079

Ratio: Deficiency in service actionable in consumer forum.

Principle
Consumer protection statutes must be liberally construed.
Human Rights1997

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

(1997) 6 SCC 241

Ratio: Sexual harassment violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21.

Principle
International conventions may be read into fundamental rights.
"Gender equality includes protection from sexual harassment."
Environmental Law1987

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak)

(1987) 1 SCC 395

Ratio: No exceptions to Rylands v. Fletcher-style liability in hazardous industry.

Principle
Enterprises engaged in hazardous activities are absolutely liable.
"An enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute and non-delegable duty."
Labour Law1984

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India

(1984) 3 SCC 161

Ratio: PIL remedy for bonded labour.

Principle
Article 21 includes right to live with dignity.
Constitutional Law1978

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

(1978) 1 SCC 248

Ratio: Article 21 procedure must satisfy Articles 14 and 19.

Principle
Substantive due process introduced.
"The procedure must be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary."
Constitutional Law1973

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

(1973) 4 SCC 225

Ratio: Article 368 does not authorise destruction of the Constitution's essential features.

Principle
Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
"The basic structure of the Constitution cannot be destroyed."
Constitutional Law1970

R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (Bank Nationalisation)

(1970) 1 SCC 248

Ratio: Rights are not water-tight compartments.

Principle
Interrelationship of fundamental rights.
Contract1919

Balfour v. Balfour (referred in Indian contract law)

[1919] 2 KB 571

Ratio: Absence of intention defeats contract.

Principle
Domestic agreements presumed non-contractual.
Company Law1897

Salomon v. Salomon (referred in Indian company law)

[1897] AC 22

Ratio: Members are not personally liable for company debts.

Principle
Corporate personality is the bedrock of company law.
"The company is at law a different person altogether from the subscribers."