Leading Judgment

1 Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549
The Supreme Court determined that our Constitution has adopted the system of Parliament government of England. Basic principle is that the President is the Constitutional Head of the executive while the actual executive powers are vested in the Council of Ministers.
2 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918

Aruna Roy v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 3176
Secularisms is the basic structure of the Constitution. Supreme Court held that the secularism has a positive meaning and it means to develop understanding and respect towards different religion.
3 Excel Wear v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 25
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130
Court would give more weightage to the nationalization and state ownership but the principles of socialism should not be interpreted and implemented to the extent it totally ignores the interest of private ownership. Further, Supreme Court held that the basic purpose of socialism is to provide decent standard of life and social security to people.
4 l. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125
Supreme Court has held that exclusion of jurisdiction of courts is unconstitutional. Judicial
review is the basic structure of the Constitution and it can never be excluded.
5 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918
Supreme Court has expressed in majority opinion that Indian Constitution is federal.
6 Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549
The federal principle or doctrine of separation of power is not incorporated in the Constitution
in the strict and rigid form.
7 State of West Bengal v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1241
Indian Constitution is not truly federal and States are not sovereign. Political sovereignty is
distributed between Union and States with greater weightage in favour of the Union.
8 State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361
Indian Union is federal but the extent of federalism is largely watered down by the needs of
progress and development of a country which has to be nationally, politically and economically
coordinated and socially, intellectually uplifted.
9 Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 3127
Though the federal principle is dominant in our Constitution and that principle is one of its basic
features, but, it is also equally true that federalism leans in favour of a strong center or unitary
power.
PREAMBLE
1 In Re Berubari Union case, AIR 1960 SC 845
The Supreme Court held that the Preamble is not the part of the Constitution.
2 Kesavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
The Supreme Court held that the Preamble is the part of the Constitution. The court held that the
Preamble of the Constitution is of extreme importance and the Constitution. Should be read and
interpreted in the light of the Preamble. The court further held that the Preamble can be
amended without altering the basic structure of the Constitution.
3 Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845
Supreme Court held that Preamble is the sum and substance of the features of the Constitution.
4 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918
Supreme Court reiterated the view held in Keshvananda Bharti case and held that Preamble is
an integral part of the Constitution.
5 K.K. baskaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2011 SC 1485
Supreme Court held that the Constitution should be interpreted in such manner so as to secure the
goal of social, economic and political justice.
6 Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhatiisgarh, AIR 2011 SC 2839
Supreme Court said that promise to provide social, economic and political justice given in the
Preamble cannot be forgotten or neglected.
7 Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845
Preamble represents the quintessence, the philosophy, the ideals, the soul or sprit of the entire
Constitution.
UNION & TERRITORY
1 Amar Singh Ji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1960 SC 504
The Supreme Court has ruled that at any given point of time, the territory of India is the area
which is specified in the First Schedule under Article 1.
2 In Re Berubari’s case, AIR 1960 SC 858
The power of Parliament to diminish the area of State does not cover cession of Indian territory
to a foreign State. The agreement could only be implemented by an amendment to the
Constitution under Article 368.
3 Babulal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 51
If the State Legislature to which the Bill has been referred, does not express its views within the
period so specified or extended, the Bill may be introduced in the Parliament even though the
views of the State have not been obtained by the President. If the State Legislature expresses its
views within the time so specified or extended the Parliament is not bound to accept or act upon
the views of the State Legislature.
4 Manganbhai v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783
An agreement to refer the dispute to the tribunal does not amount to cessation to territory and
hence amendment of Constitution is not necessary.
5 R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1804
Even though the admission or establishment of a new State will be on such terms and conditions
as the Parliament may think fit, such conditions cannot be imposed which is against the basic
structure of the Constitution.
CITIZENSHIP
1 Pradeep Jain (Dr.) v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420
Dr. Yogesh Bhardwaj vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 356
Supreme Court has held that Article 5 recognizes of India. It does not recognize the concept of
State domicile.
2 Sondur Gopal v. Sondur Rajini, AIR 2013 SC 2678
Regarding domicile of choice Supreme Court has held that in domicile of choice mere acquisition
of other domicile is not sufficient. There must be clear intention to abandon the domicile of origin.
3 Bhanwaru Khan v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 1614
Supreme Court recognized that those who had voluntarily migrated to Pakistan and became
citizens there, cannot return to India. They cannot claim the citizenship of India on the ground
that they had been living in India for a long time and their names have been included in the
voter list.
4 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1963 SC 1811
Supreme Court held that a company is not a citizen and therefore, cannot claim Fundamental
Rights which have been conferred upon its citizens.
The Court further clarified that the citizenship in Part 2 is concerned with the natural persons
and not juristic persons.
5
Tata Engineering v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 40
It was contended by shareholders of the company that though the company was not the citizen
but shareholders were citizens and therefore, the fundamental rights of its shareholders must be
protected by lifting the corporate veil. The Supreme court while rejecting the said contention held
that what cannot be achieved directly cannot also be achieved indirectly. Thus, company does not
receive the protection of fundamental rights through shareholders.
6
R. C. Cooper v. Union of India, (Bank Nationalization case) AIR 1970 SC 564
Supreme Court held that id the State’s action impairs the rights of shareholders and well as that
of company the shareholders will be entitled to protection under Article 19. Form this case the
Supreme Court adopted a flexible approach in interpreting this aspect.
7
Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 32
The Supreme Court held that though a company is not a citizen but a shareholder has a right to
carry in business through agency of a company.
DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE, SEVERABILITY, JUDICIAL REVIEW
1 Keshav Madhav Manon v. State of Bobmay, AIR 1951 SC 128
Supreme Court observed that pre-Constitutional laws exists for all past acts, i.e. prior to
commencement of Constitution.
2 Bhikhaji v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 781
Formulated the doctrine of eclipse. The court held that under this doctrine the law is
overshadowed by fundamental right and remains dormant.
3
Saghir Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 728
The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of eclipse is only applicable to pre-Constitutional laws
and not to post-Constitutional laws. In Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959) and Mehendra Lal
Jain v. State of U.P. (1963) this view was endorsed by the court.
4
State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills, AIR 1974 SC 1300
Supreme Court modified its view expressed in Deep Chand s case, Mahendra Lal Jain s case and
Sagir Ahmed s case. The court held that post- constitutional laws, which are inconsistent with
fundamental rights, are not void ab initio for lal purposes. Doctrine of eclipse is applicable to
post-constitutional laws as well.
5 R.M.D.C. v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628
The Supreme Court elaborately discussed the doctrine of severability and held that when after
removing the invalid portion what remains is a complete code then there is no necessity to declare
the whole Act void.
6
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
Supreme Court held there where the law authorizes restrictions on Fundamental Rights which is
wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits provided by the Constitution
and it is not possible to separate the two then the whole law is to be struck down.
7
Kihota Hollohan v. Zachillhu, AIR 1993 SC 412
Supreme Court held that 10th Schedule minus para 7 remains valid and constitutional. The
remaining provisions of 10th Schedule are complete in themselves and workable.
8
Keshvnanda Bharti v. State of kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
Power of judicial review is not limited to only deciding whether legislative bodies have worked
within the boundaries of certain legislative lists in making the required laws, but it is necessary
whether the laws have been made in accordance with the Article of the Constitution and they do
not violate the other provisions of the Constitution.
9
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125
The Supreme Court reiterated that the power of the judicial review given to the Supreme Court
and the High Courts under Article 32 and 226 is the basic structure of the Constitution and it can
be terminated by statutory amendment under Article 368.
CONCEPT OF STATE
1 University of Madras v. Santa Bai, AIR 1954 Mad. 67
Madras High Court held that ‘other authorities’ could only be interpreted by using the principle
of ejusdem generis. Therefore, it could only mean authorities exercising government or sovereign
function.
2 Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857
Supreme Court rejected the interpretation in Santa Bai’s case and held that the expression ‘other
authorities’ is wide enough to include all authorities created by the Constitution or statute on
whom the power is conferred by law. It is not necessary that the authority must be engaged in
performing government or sovereign function.
3 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331
Supreme Court held that if the functions of the Corporations are of public importance and closely
related to government functions then it should be treated as agency or instrumentality of
government i.e. ‘State’ within the meaning of Part 3.
4 Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC
1628
Supreme Court followed test laid down in Sukhdev Singh s case. The court laid down following
test to determine whether a body is an agency or instrumentality of the State-
(1)Financial resources of the State is the chief funding source of the body.
(2)Existence of deep and pervasive State control.
(3)Functional character of the body is government in essence.
(4)Department of government is transferred to the corporation.
(5)Whether the Corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected.
5
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487
Supreme Court held that s Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1898, is an
agency or instrumentality of the State and hence a ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12. The
court observed that the test is not how a juristic person is created but why it has been brought into
existence.
6 Naresh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1
The question whether the judiciary comes under the word ‘state’ or not was considered by
supreme court.
Supreme court did not express any definitive opinion on the matter. It said that even if the court
is considered within the meaning of ‘state’ a writ under Article 32 cannot be issued to a high court
against its judicial orders. The supreme court opined that such judicial orders cannot be said to
violate the fundamental rights.
7
Riju Prasad Sjarma v. State of Assam, (2015) 9 SCC 461
Supreme court categorically held that courts while acting on judicial side, are not ‘state’ under
Article 12 of the Constitution. When the courts act in purely administrative capacity then they
may attract the writ jurisdiction against their administrative actions. Thus, after this decision of
the position is amply clear that courts while acting on judicial side are not ‘state’ but they may
attract the trapping of ‘state’ when they act in administrative capacity.