Landmark Supreme Court Judgements for UPSC — Background, Facts & Analysis
A complete, exam-ready guide to India's most important Supreme Court cases — from A.K. Gopalan (1950) to the Tamil Nadu Governor case (2025). For each ruling we give the background & facts, the constitutional question, the verdict, and its significance, plus probable Prelims MCQs, Mains questions and FAQs.
Supreme Court judgements are the backbone of constitutional interpretation in India. They explain the true meaning of constitutional provisions, resolve conflicts between organs of the state, and protect citizens' rights. They are not merely case-specific decisions; they lay down binding legal principles, doctrines and interpretations that guide future legislation, executive action and judicial reasoning. Concepts such as basic structure, judicial review, due process, federalism, secularism, equality and dignity have evolved primarily through these landmark rulings.
For UPSC aspirants, the smart way to study a case is not to memorise it, but to break it into four parts — Background & Facts, the Constitutional Question, the Verdict, and its Significance. That is exactly how this guide is organised, so you can revise fast and write with authority.
Supreme Court judgements are relevant to GS Paper II (Polity, Governance, Constitution, Judiciary), GS Paper IV (Ethics — constitutional morality, dignity, justice), and the current-affairs sections of both Prelims and Mains. They sit precisely where the static Constitution meets dynamic current affairs — which is why the exam keeps returning to them.
How UPSC Asks About Judgements (2025–2026 Trend)
Polity contributes roughly 14–15 questions in Prelims each year and is among the most scoring sections. Recent cycles show a tilt toward judgment-linked, concept-testing questions rather than pure trivia. Expect four formats:
- Principle-to-case matching (Prelims): e.g. Kesavananda → Basic Structure, S.R. Bommai → Article 356 justiciability, Kihoto Hollohan → anti-defection review.
- Statement-based MCQs on recent verdicts (Prelims): the Electoral Bonds judgment (2024) and the Tamil Nadu Governor case (2025) are prime candidates — testing the exact Article and ratio.
- Ethics application (Mains GS-IV): constitutional morality, dignity in death (Aruna Shanbaug), privacy (Puttaswamy).
- Analytical questions (Mains GS-II): evolution of the basic structure; judicial review vs parliamentary sovereignty; federalism and Article 356.
Master Timeline — Landmark Judgements at a Glance
Your one-look revision table. Each row is a probable Prelims matching pair.
| Year | Case | Principle / Impact |
|---|---|---|
| 1950 | A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras | Narrow Art. 21; FRs treated as isolated silos |
| 1950 | Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras | Free speech includes circulation; led to 1st Amendment |
| 1951 | Shankari Prasad v. Union | Parliament can amend FRs; Art. 13 not for amendments |
| 1960 | Berubari Union (Reference) | Ceding territory needs a constitutional amendment |
| 1967 | Golaknath v. State of Punjab | FRs non-amendable; prospective overruling introduced |
| 1973 | Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | Basic Structure Doctrine; judicial review of amendments |
| 1975 | Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain | Free & fair elections a basic feature; struck 39th Amdt |
| 1976 | ADM Jabalpur (Habeas Corpus) | Liberty suspended in Emergency (majority); Khanna dissent |
| 1978 | Maneka Gandhi v. Union | Art. 21 broadened; "just, fair, reasonable"; golden triangle |
| 1980 | Minerva Mills v. Union | Limited amending power a basic feature; FR–DPSP balance |
| 1981 | Waman Rao v. Union | Basic structure applies to amendments after 24 Apr 1973 |
| 1985 | Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano | Maintenance under Sec. 125 CrPC; gender justice |
| 1986 | M.C. Mehta v. Union (Oleum) | Absolute Liability; clean environment part of Art. 21 |
| 1992 | Indra Sawhney v. Union (Mandal) | OBC reservation upheld; creamy layer; 50% ceiling |
| 1994 | S.R. Bommai v. Union | Art. 356 justiciable; federalism & secularism basic features |
| 1997 | L. Chandra Kumar v. Union | Judicial review basic structure; HCs supervise tribunals |
| 1997 | Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan | Guidelines against workplace sexual harassment |
| 1997 | Samatha v. State of A.P. | Tribal land in Scheduled Areas protected from non-tribals |
| 2000 | Lily Thomas v. Union | Conversion doesn't dissolve first marriage; 2nd marriage void |
| 2007 | I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N. | Ninth Schedule laws subject to basic-structure review |
| 2011 | Aruna Shanbaug v. Union | Passive euthanasia with safeguards; dignity in death |
| 2013 | PUCL v. Union (NOTA) | "None of the Above" option; voter choice with secrecy |
| 2014 | NALSA v. Union | Transgender as third gender; self-identification |
| 2017 | K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union | Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right under Art. 21 |
| 2017 | Shayara Bano v. Union (Triple Talaq) | Instant triple talaq unconstitutional; manifest arbitrariness |
| 2018 | Navtej Johar v. Union (Sec. 377) | Consensual same-sex relations decriminalised |
| 2018 | Joseph Shine v. Union | Adultery (Sec. 497 IPC) struck down |
| 2018 | Sabarimala (Young Lawyers Assn.) | Women 10–50 entry allowed; constitutional morality |
| 2019 | M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya) | Disputed title to deity; alternate land to Waqf Board |
| 2023 | In re Article 370 | Abrogation of J&K's special status upheld |
| 2023 | Anoop Baranwal v. Union | CEC/EC appointment by a committee (until a law is made) |
| 2024 | ADR v. Union (Electoral Bonds) | Scheme struck down; right to know under Art. 19(1)(a) |
| 2024 | State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh | Sub-classification within SC/ST reservation permitted |
| 2024 | Sita Soren v. Union | No legislator immunity for bribery; overruled 1998 ruling |
| 2025 | State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor | No pocket veto; timelines under Article 200 |
Era 1 — The Foundational Years (1950–1976)
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Background & Facts
A.K. Gopalan, a prominent Communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He challenged his detention as violating his fundamental rights, arguing that the law and the procedure behind his detention were unfair.
Constitutional Question
Does "procedure established by law" in Article 21 require the procedure to be fair and reasonable, and are the fundamental rights in Articles 19, 21 and 22 interconnected?
The Verdict
The Court adopted a strict, literal interpretation. It held that "procedure established by law" meant any procedure enacted by the legislature — it need not be fair or reasonable. Fundamental Rights were read as isolated, self-contained provisions (the "silo" approach), not to be read together.
Significance
This narrow reading dominated for decades until it was effectively overturned in R.C. Cooper (1970) and decisively in Maneka Gandhi (1978).
2. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950)
Background & Facts
Romesh Thapar published a leftist English weekly, Cross Roads, from Bombay. The Madras government banned its entry and circulation in the state under a public-safety law, alleging it threatened public order.
Constitutional Question
Can the state restrict the circulation of a publication on the ground of "public order," and does freedom of speech include the freedom to circulate?
The Verdict
The Court struck down the ban. It held that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of circulation, and that restrictions must fall strictly within the grounds then listed in Article 19(2) — "public order" was not yet one of them.
Significance
Along with Brij Bhushan, this ruling prompted the First Constitutional Amendment (1951), which added "reasonable restrictions" and grounds like public order and incitement to Article 19(2). A cornerstone of Indian press-freedom jurisprudence.
3. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
Background & Facts
The First Amendment (1951) — which inserted Articles 31A and 31B and the Ninth Schedule to protect land-reform laws — was challenged as violating Fundamental Rights.
Constitutional Question
Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368? Does the word "law" in Article 13(2) include a constitutional amendment?
The Verdict
The Court upheld Parliament's power. It held that "law" in Article 13 means ordinary legislation, not a constitutional amendment, so amendments are not tested against Fundamental Rights. Article 368 contains both the power and the procedure to amend.
Significance
This launched the great "amendment saga": Shankari Prasad (1951) → Sajjan Singh (1965) → Golaknath (1967) → Kesavananda (1973). Learn the chain in order.
4. Berubari Union Case (1960)
Background & Facts
The Nehru–Noon Agreement (1958) proposed transferring part of the Berubari Union (in West Bengal) to Pakistan. The President made a reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 to know how the transfer could lawfully be effected.
Constitutional Question
Can Indian territory be ceded to a foreign country by ordinary law or executive action, or is a constitutional amendment required?
The Verdict
The Court held that ceding territory requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368 — Article 3 (reorganisation of states) is not enough. It also observed (at that time) that the Preamble is not part of the Constitution.
Significance
Led to the Ninth Amendment (1960). The Preamble view was later revised in Kesavananda, which held the Preamble is part of the Constitution.
5. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
Background & Facts
The Golaknath family's landholdings in Punjab were capped under a land-tenure law placed in the Ninth Schedule by the 17th Amendment. They challenged the amendments curtailing property rights.
Constitutional Question
Can Parliament amend or take away Fundamental Rights? Is a constitutional amendment "law" under Article 13?
The Verdict
An 11-judge bench, by a narrow 6:5 majority, reversed the earlier view: Fundamental Rights cannot be amended or abridged, and a constitutional amendment is "law" under Article 13. To avoid chaos, the Court applied the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling.
Significance
It triggered a direct clash with Parliament and set the stage for Kesavananda, which superseded it with the more balanced basic-structure formula.
6. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Background & Facts
Swami Kesavananda Bharati, head of the Edneer Mutt in Kasaragod, Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Acts that restricted the Mutt's property, filing under Article 26 (with Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 25 and 31). Guided by jurist Nani Palkhivala, the challenge widened to the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments and the very limits of Parliament's amending power. The case was heard for 68 days by the largest-ever bench of 13 judges.
Constitutional Question
Is Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 unlimited, or are there inherent limits that protect the Constitution's essential features?
The Verdict
By a razor-thin 7:6 majority (24 April 1973), the Court evolved the Basic Structure Doctrine: Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but cannot alter or destroy its basic structure. Judicial review of amendments was affirmed; the Constitution was declared supreme over Parliament.
Significance
The cornerstone of Indian constitutional law — the single most-tested judgment in UPSC Polity. (Note: the petitioner lost on the land, but India gained a lasting shield against authoritarian amendment.) The very next day, dissenter Justice A.N. Ray was elevated to CJI, superseding three seniors.
7. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Background & Facts
Raj Narain challenged PM Indira Gandhi's 1971 Rae Bareli election win. The Allahabad High Court found her guilty of electoral malpractice. During the appeal — and the Emergency — Parliament passed the 39th Amendment, placing the election of the PM (and others) beyond judicial review.
Constitutional Question
Can Parliament, by amendment, immunise a specific election dispute from judicial scrutiny?
The Verdict
The Court struck down the offending clause of the 39th Amendment, holding that free and fair elections, judicial review and the rule of law are part of the basic structure.
Significance
The first time the basic-structure doctrine was actually used to strike down an amendment — a powerful check on constitutional misuse during the Emergency.
8. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla — The Habeas Corpus Case (1976)
Background & Facts
During the 1975 Emergency, thousands were detained without trial under MISA. With Article 21 suspended by Presidential order, detainees moved High Courts for habeas corpus.
Constitutional Question
When Article 21 is suspended during an Emergency, can a person still approach the courts to challenge unlawful detention?
The Verdict
By a 4:1 majority, the Court held that the right to move any court for enforcement of Article 21 stands suspended during the Emergency — a low point for civil liberties. Justice H.R. Khanna's lone dissent held that the right to life and liberty exists independently of the Constitution and cannot be extinguished.
Significance
The majority was expressly overruled in Puttaswamy (2017). The 44th Amendment (1978) ensured Articles 20 and 21 can never be suspended, even in an Emergency. Justice Khanna, superseded for CJI, is remembered as a hero of judicial independence.
Era 2 — The Transformative Shift (1978–2000)
9. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Background & Facts
Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded by the government "in public interest" under the Passport Act, without giving reasons or a hearing. She challenged the action.
Constitutional Question
Must the "procedure established by law" under Article 21 be just, fair and reasonable, and are Articles 14, 19 and 21 to be read together?
The Verdict
The Court transformed constitutional law: any procedure depriving a person of life or liberty must be "just, fair and reasonable" — reading a form of due process into Article 21. It linked Articles 14, 19 and 21 as the "golden triangle," overruling the isolation approach of Gopalan.
Significance
The fountainhead of modern rights jurisprudence — every later expansion of Article 21 (privacy, clean environment, dignity in death, speedy trial) traces back to this case.
10. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Background & Facts
Minerva Mills, a Karnataka textile undertaking, was nationalised. The challenge targeted clauses of the 42nd Amendment (1976) — especially Article 368(4) & (5), which barred judicial review of amendments, and an expanded Article 31C giving all Directive Principles primacy over Fundamental Rights.
Constitutional Question
Can Parliament give itself unlimited amending power and completely subordinate Fundamental Rights to Directive Principles?
The Verdict
The Court struck down the offending clauses. It held that the limited amending power of Parliament is itself part of the basic structure, and that the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is a basic feature that cannot be destroyed.
Significance
Cemented Kesavananda and confirmed that no amendment can place itself beyond judicial review.
11. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)
Background & Facts
A batch of petitions challenged agrarian-reform laws and their placement in the Ninth Schedule, raising the question of how far back the basic-structure doctrine reaches.
Constitutional Question
From what date does the basic-structure test apply to constitutional amendments?
The Verdict
The Court drew a clear line: amendments made after 24 April 1973 (the Kesavananda date) are subject to basic-structure review; those made before are largely protected.
Significance
Ensured legal certainty and prevented retrospective chaos. The "24 April 1973" cut-off is a classic Prelims factual hook (and reappears in I.R. Coelho).
12. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)
Background & Facts
Shah Bano, a 62-year-old woman from Indore, was divorced by her husband through triple talaq. She sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, a secular provision applicable to all.
Constitutional Question
Is a divorced Muslim woman entitled to maintenance under secular criminal law, or is she governed solely by personal law?
The Verdict
The Court granted maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, holding it applies regardless of religion, and emphasised equality, dignity and the case for a Uniform Civil Code (Article 44).
Significance
Sparked a national debate; the government enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which was seen as diluting the verdict. A ready UCC example for Mains.
13. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India — Oleum Gas Leak (1986)
Background & Facts
Just a year after the Bhopal disaster, oleum gas leaked from the Shriram Foods & Fertilisers plant in Delhi (1985), harming people nearby. Environmental lawyer M.C. Mehta filed a public interest litigation.
Constitutional Question
What standard of liability applies to enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities?
The Verdict
The Court evolved the doctrine of Absolute Liability — an enterprise in a hazardous activity is absolutely liable to compensate victims, with no exceptions (unlike the older English "strict liability" of Rylands v. Fletcher). It held the right to a clean and healthy environment is part of Article 21.
Significance
Foundation of Indian environmental jurisprudence and expanded the scope of Article 32 (compensation for rights violations).
14. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India — The Mandal Case (1992)
Background & Facts
The V.P. Singh government implemented the Mandal Commission's recommendation of 27% reservation for OBCs in government jobs, triggering nationwide protests and legal challenge.
Constitutional Question
Is caste-based reservation for OBCs constitutional, and what limits apply to it?
The Verdict
A nine-judge bench upheld 27% OBC reservation, but laid down limits: the "creamy layer" must be excluded, total reservations should not ordinarily exceed 50%, and there is no reservation in promotions (later restored by the 77th Amendment).
Significance
The framework for all reservation policy since. Its 50% ceiling and creamy-layer ideas resurface in the EWS (103rd Amendment) verdict and the 2024 SC/ST sub-classification ruling.
15. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Background & Facts
The Karnataka government of S.R. Bommai (and several other state governments) was dismissed under Article 356 (President's Rule), allegedly on political grounds.
Constitutional Question
Is the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356 subject to judicial review, and how should a government's majority be tested?
The Verdict
A nine-judge bench held that Article 356 is justiciable; the President's satisfaction can be reviewed; a government's majority must be tested on the floor of the House, not by the Governor's opinion; and courts can even restore a dismissed government. It affirmed federalism and secularism as basic features.
Significance
The single most important federalism judgment — it sharply curbed the misuse of Article 356.
16. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Background & Facts
Provisions under Articles 323A/323B and the Administrative Tribunals Act sought to make tribunals the sole forum and exclude the writ jurisdiction of High Courts.
Constitutional Question
Can tribunals oust the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32?
The Verdict
The Court held that judicial review under Articles 226/227 and 32 is part of the basic structure and cannot be excluded. Tribunals act as supplementary bodies, and their decisions remain subject to High Court scrutiny.
Significance
Preserved the High Courts' constitutional role and citizens' access to justice.
17. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Background & Facts
The case arose from the brutal gang-rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan who had tried to stop a child marriage. With no law on workplace sexual harassment, women's groups (Vishaka) filed a PIL.
Constitutional Question
In the absence of legislation, can the Court lay down enforceable safeguards against sexual harassment at the workplace?
The Verdict
The Court framed the binding Vishaka Guidelines, drawing on Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 and the international convention CEDAW, and defined employer responsibility.
Significance
A landmark example of judicial law-making filling a legislative vacuum — the guidelines became the POSH Act, 2013.
18. Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997)
Background & Facts
The NGO Samatha challenged government mining leases granted to non-tribals in Scheduled Areas, where tribal land is constitutionally protected.
Constitutional Question
Can government land and tribal land in Fifth Schedule areas be leased to non-tribals for mining?
The Verdict
The Court held such mining leases to non-tribals invalid, protecting tribal land and resource rights and emphasising the state's protective duty under the Fifth Schedule.
Significance
A key ruling linking social justice, tribal autonomy (PESA) and environmental protection.
19. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000)
Background & Facts
The case concerned Hindu men converting to Islam solely to contract a second marriage without dissolving the first, thereby evading bigamy law.
Constitutional Question
Does religious conversion automatically dissolve an existing marriage and permit a second marriage?
The Verdict
The Court held that conversion does not dissolve the first marriage; a second marriage during its subsistence is void and amounts to bigamy under Section 494 IPC.
Significance
Protected women against misuse of personal law and reinforced equality. (Do not confuse with the 2013 Lily Thomas ruling that disqualified convicted legislators.)
Era 3 — Expanding Rights & Dignity (2007–2018)
20. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Background & Facts
Several laws had been placed in the Ninth Schedule (which nominally shields laws from judicial review), and their immunity was challenged.
Constitutional Question
Are laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule wholly immune from judicial review, even if they violate Fundamental Rights?
The Verdict
A nine-judge bench held that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are open to challenge if they violate the basic structure or the "golden triangle" (Articles 14, 19, 21). This is the "Coelho test."
Significance
Reaffirmed that no legislative device can place a law entirely beyond constitutional scrutiny.
21. Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)
Background & Facts
Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse at Mumbai's KEM Hospital, was sexually assaulted in 1973 and left in a persistent vegetative state for nearly four decades. Journalist Pinki Virani petitioned for permission to withdraw life support.
Constitutional Question
Does the right to life under Article 21 include the right to die with dignity, and is passive euthanasia permissible?
The Verdict
The Court permitted passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life support) under strict safeguards and High Court oversight, while rejecting active euthanasia. It recognised dignity in death as part of Article 21.
Significance
Built upon in Common Cause (2018), which recognised living wills / advance directives. Strong GS-IV (ethics) material.
22. PUCL v. Union of India — NOTA (2013)
Background & Facts
The People's Union for Civil Liberties sought a voter's right to reject all candidates while preserving ballot secrecy.
Constitutional Question
Does a voter have a constitutional right to register a "none of the above" choice secretly?
The Verdict
The Court directed the Election Commission to provide a NOTA ("None of the Above") button on EVMs, grounding it in the right to expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and secrecy.
Significance
Strengthened voter choice and electoral accountability. (Currently NOTA does not void an election even if it secures the most votes.)
23. NALSA v. Union of India (2014)
Background & Facts
The National Legal Services Authority filed a petition seeking legal recognition and rights for transgender persons.
Constitutional Question
Are transgender persons entitled to legal recognition of their gender identity and equal protection under the Constitution?
The Verdict
The Court recognised transgender persons as a "third gender," affirmed the right to self-identification of gender, and directed welfare and inclusion measures under Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21.
Significance
Basis for the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019; a landmark for dignity and equality.
24. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India — Right to Privacy (2017)
Background & Facts
Retired High Court judge K.S. Puttaswamy challenged the Aadhaar programme. A nine-judge bench was constituted to settle whether privacy is a fundamental right.
Constitutional Question
Is the right to privacy a fundamental right under the Constitution?
The Verdict
A nine-judge bench unanimously held that the right to privacy is intrinsic to Article 21 and Part III. It overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, introduced the proportionality test for privacy intrusions, and expressly overruled the ADM Jabalpur majority.
Significance
Foundation for data protection, decriminalisation of Section 377, and limits on state surveillance.
25. Shayara Bano v. Union of India — Triple Talaq (2017)
Background & Facts
Shayara Bano, divorced by instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat), challenged the practice as violating her fundamental rights.
Constitutional Question
Is instant, irrevocable triple talaq constitutionally valid?
The Verdict
By a 3:2 majority, the Court struck down instant triple talaq as unconstitutional and manifestly arbitrary, prioritising gender justice and constitutional morality.
Significance
Doctrinal basis is Manifest Arbitrariness under Article 14. Led to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
26. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India — Section 377 (2018)
Background & Facts
Dancer Navtej Singh Johar and others challenged Section 377 IPC, which criminalised "carnal intercourse against the order of nature," effectively targeting consensual same-sex relations.
Constitutional Question
Does criminalising consensual adult same-sex relations violate the rights to equality, privacy and dignity?
The Verdict
A five-judge bench unanimously read down Section 377 to decriminalise consensual same-sex acts between adults, invoking constitutional morality, privacy, dignity and equality, and partly overruling Suresh Kumar Koushal (2013).
Significance
A milestone in rights-based jurisprudence; pair it with Joseph Shine and Sabarimala on constitutional morality.
Joseph Shine v. Union (2018): struck down adultery (Section 497 IPC) for treating women as their husband's property and violating equality and dignity.
Sabarimala — Indian Young Lawyers Assn. (2018): allowed the entry of women aged 10–50, applying constitutional morality over customary exclusion (a review is pending before a larger bench).
Puttaswamy (Aadhaar) (2018): upheld Aadhaar as a reasonable measure but struck down Section 57 (private-entity use) and read down mandatory linking.
Ayodhya — M. Siddiq (2019): a five-judge bench unanimously awarded the disputed site's title to the deity (Ram Lalla) and directed 5 acres of alternate land to the Sunni Waqf Board.
Era 4 — Recent Landmark Judgements (2023–2026)
These post-2018 verdicts are the most current-affairs-heavy and the likeliest source of fresh Prelims and Mains questions.
27. ADR v. Union of India — Electoral Bonds (2024)
Background & Facts
The Electoral Bonds Scheme (2018) allowed individuals and companies to donate to political parties anonymously through SBI bonds, with amendments to the Companies Act, RP Act and Income Tax Act enabling unlimited, undisclosed corporate funding. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) challenged it.
Constitutional Question
Does anonymous political funding violate the voter's right to information and free and fair elections?
The Verdict
On 15 February 2024, a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously struck down the scheme as violating the right to information under Article 19(1)(a), finding that anonymous, unlimited corporate funding risked quid pro quo corruption. It directed SBI to disclose bond data and the ECI to publish it.
Significance
A major electoral-transparency verdict — very high yield for both Prelims (exact Article, petitioner) and a GS-II answer on electoral reform.
28. State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025)
Background & Facts
Governor R.N. Ravi withheld assent to ten bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly, some for years, prompting the state to move the Supreme Court (2023). The verdict came on 8 April 2025.
Constitutional Question
Can a Governor indefinitely sit on bills ("pocket veto") under Article 200, and is such inaction reviewable?
The Verdict
The Court held that a Governor cannot exercise an absolute or "pocket" veto; if a bill is withheld it must be returned for reconsideration, and once re-passed, assent must follow. It indicated timelines for gubernatorial action and made inaction justiciable.
Significance
The freshest Polity flashpoint — expect statement-based MCQs on Article 200/201 and the Governor's options (assent / withhold / reserve for President / return).
29. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh — SC/ST Sub-Classification (2024)
Background & Facts
The question was whether states can create sub-categories within Scheduled Castes/Tribes to give preference to the most backward among them — an issue earlier settled against sub-classification in E.V. Chinnaiah (2004).
The Verdict
A seven-judge bench held that states can sub-classify SC/STs based on empirical data of relative backwardness, overruling Chinnaiah. Several judges also favoured extending a creamy-layer filter to SC/STs.
Significance
Connects to Indra Sawhney and Articles 14/16 — a strong GS-I/GS-II social-justice question.
30. In re Article 370 of the Constitution (2023)
Background & Facts
Petitions challenged the 2019 abrogation of Article 370 (special status of Jammu & Kashmir) and the reorganisation of the state into two Union Territories.
The Verdict
A Constitution Bench upheld the abrogation, holding Article 370 to be a temporary provision and that J&K retained no internal sovereignty after accession. It directed restoration of statehood and elections in a time-bound manner.
Significance
Ties to federalism, Article 3 (reorganisation) and asymmetric federalism — versatile for Mains.
Anoop Baranwal (2023): the CEC and Election Commissioners were to be appointed by a committee (PM, Leader of Opposition, CJI) until Parliament legislates — a later law changed the committee's composition.
Supriyo v. Union (2023; review refused 2025): there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage; the matter was left to the legislature.
Sita Soren v. Union (2024): overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998) — legislators enjoy no immunity under Articles 105(2)/194(2) for taking bribes to vote or speak.
"Bulldozer Justice" (2024): arbitrary demolition of property as punishment violates the rule of law, separation of powers and the right to shelter; due process is mandatory.
A judgment is not a date to memorise — it's a principle with a before-and-after. Learn what the law was, what the Court changed, and which Article or doctrine carried the change. That structure answers a Prelims statement and frames a Mains paragraph. — Legacy IAS Faculty
Probable Prelims MCQs (with Answers)
With reference to the Electoral Bonds judgment (2024), consider the following statements:
1. The Supreme Court struck down the scheme as violating the right to information under Article 19(1)(a).
2. The verdict was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench.
3. The Court directed the State Bank of India to disclose details of the bonds.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (d). All three are correct.
Consider the following pairs of case and principle:
1. S.R. Bommai — Article 356 is subject to judicial review
2. I.R. Coelho — Ninth Schedule laws are wholly immune from judicial review
3. Kesavananda Bharati — Basic Structure Doctrine
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?
(a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None
Answer: (b). Pairs 1 and 3 are correct. Pair 2 is wrong — I.R. Coelho held the opposite: post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws are open to basic-structure review.
Consider the following statements:
1. The majority verdict in ADM Jabalpur (Habeas Corpus case) was later overruled in the Puttaswamy (Privacy) judgment.
2. The 44th Constitutional Amendment made Articles 20 and 21 non-suspendable even during a National Emergency.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: (c). Both are correct.
Which of the following was/were established or upheld in the Indra Sawhney (Mandal) case, 1992?
1. Exclusion of the "creamy layer" from OBC reservation.
2. A ceiling of 50% on total reservations.
3. Reservation in promotions for OBCs.
Select the correct answer:
(a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (a). The Court excluded the creamy layer and set the 50% ceiling but disallowed reservation in promotions (later restored by the 77th Amendment).
Probable Mains Questions (GS Paper II)
- Trace the evolution of the relationship between Parliament's amending power and Fundamental Rights through Shankari Prasad, Golaknath, Kesavananda and Minerva Mills. (250 words)
- "S.R. Bommai transformed Indian federalism." Discuss how judicial review of Article 356 has protected State autonomy. (150 words)
- The Electoral Bonds judgment (2024) reframed the debate on transparency in political funding. Critically examine. (250 words)
- Recent verdicts on constitutional morality (Section 377, Sabarimala, Joseph Shine) have expanded individual rights against majoritarian practices. Analyse the promise and the criticism of this approach. (250 words)
- Examine the constitutional questions raised by the Tamil Nadu Governor case (2025) regarding the Governor's role under Articles 200 and 201. (150 words)
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Which is the most important Supreme Court judgment for UPSC?
The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) is the most important, as it laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine — that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy its basic structure. It is the most frequently tested judgment in UPSC Polity.
What is the difference between the Golaknath and Kesavananda Bharati cases?
Golaknath (1967) held that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended at all. Kesavananda (1973) took a more balanced view: Parliament can amend any part, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
Why is the Maneka Gandhi case (1978) so important?
It expanded Article 21 by requiring that any procedure depriving a person of life or liberty be "just, fair and reasonable," and it linked Articles 14, 19 and 21 as the "golden triangle" — the foundation of modern rights jurisprudence.
Which recent Supreme Court judgments are important for UPSC 2026?
The most exam-relevant recent verdicts include the Electoral Bonds case (2024), Article 370 abrogation (2023), SC/ST sub-classification (2024), Sita Soren (2024), and the Tamil Nadu Governor case (2025).
How should I study landmark judgments for UPSC?
Learn each case as a compact set: the year, the Article(s) involved, the principle or doctrine established, and what it overruled or led to. Focus on impact rather than lengthy facts — that is exactly how UPSC frames its questions.
Key Takeaways
- Learn every case as a triad — year + Article/principle + what it overruled or led to; that is exactly what a Prelims statement tests.
- The amendment saga is the spine of Polity: Shankari Prasad → Golaknath → Kesavananda (Basic Structure, 1973) → Minerva Mills → Coelho.
- Maneka Gandhi (1978) is the fountainhead of modern Article 21 — privacy, environment and dignity all flow from its "just, fair, reasonable" test.
- Federalism & institutions: S.R. Bommai (Art. 356), L. Chandra Kumar (tribunals), and the 2025 TN Governor case (Art. 200) recur often.
- Rights & dignity: Puttaswamy, NALSA, Triple Talaq, Section 377, Joseph Shine, Sabarimala — driven by privacy, equality and constitutional morality.
- Fresh, high-yield 2023–2025 verdicts: Electoral Bonds, Article 370, SC/ST sub-classification, Sita Soren, Bulldozer Justice, TN Governor.
