List of landmark court decisions in India

What links here Related changes Page information
Created by Ghazal Builders
Last edited April 10, 2026
Emblem of the [[Supreme Court of India]], India's highest judiciary body.
Emblem of the Supreme Court of India, India's highest judiciary authority.

Landmark court decisions in India substantially change the interpretation of existing law. Such a landmark decision may settle the law in more than one way. In present-day common law legal systems it may do so by:[1][2]

  • Establishing a significant new legal principle or concept;
  • Overturning prior precedent based on its negative effects or flaws in its reasoning;
  • Distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of stare decisis;
  • Establishing a "test" (that is, a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions).

In India, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the Supreme Court of India, which is the highest judicial body in India. High courts of India may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case or if it adopts the holding of the lower court.

Individual rights

Name of the case Year Judgement
Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras[3] 1950 Ban on dissenting media under the Section 9 (1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 struck down as unconstitutional.
This in-turn led to formulation of the 1st amendment of the Constitution of India which clarified public order can form grounds for reasonable restrictions of free speech.
Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh[4] 1977 Right to propagate religion does not include the right to convert by force, fraud or allurement.
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum[5] 1985 Upheld the payment of maintenance and alimony to Shah Bano and hence to Muslim women by Muslim Husbands.
The Rajiv Gandhi ministry passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 which diluted this judgement and restricted the right to maintenance and alimony which was heavily criticized as a move to appease Muslims opposing the judgement.[6][7][8][9][10][11] The Supreme court later through Danial Latifi v. Union of India case and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan upheld the Shah Bano judgement effectively nullifying the Muslim Women Act 1986.
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India[12] 2014 Recognised transgender as 'third gender' in law and affirmed that the fundamental rights granted under the Constitution of India will be equally applicable to them.
ABC v. The State (NCT of Delhi)[13] 2015 Unwed woman belonging to the Christian faith can become a legal guardian of her child without the father's consent.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[14] 2015 Struck down restrictions on online speech introduced in Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India[15]

or The Right to Privacy verdict

2017 Right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India thus overruling ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla.[16]
This judgement thus overruled the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976):[17] A person's right to not be unlawfully detained (i.e. habeas corpus) can be suspended during emergency.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India[18] 2018 Decriminalisation of acts of Oral sex and Anal sex which effectively decriminalised Homosexual sex.
This judgement thus overruled Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013):[19] Upheld and reinstated the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalising Anal sex
This judgement thus overruled Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009):[20] Decriminalization of homosexual acts involving consenting adults throughout India.
Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration 2019 The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) directed the Tamil Nadu state to ban forced sex-selective surgeries on intersex infants,[21][22].the high court of Tamil Nadu, ruled that the term "bride" under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 includes trans women. Specifically, it directed the authorities to register a marriage between a man and a transgender woman.[23][24]
Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal[25] 2022 Atypical families and same-sex couples are deserving of equal protection under law and benefits available under social welfare legislation.
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India or EWS Reservation Case. 2022 The legality of the 103rd Amendment of the Constitution, which provides reservation in educational institutes as well as in jobs for the economically weaker sections, was upheld.
Supriyo v. Union of India 2023 The right to marry is a statutory right, not a constitutional right. Therefore, only Parliament can recognize the marriage between non-heterosexual couples.

Criminal law

Name of the case Year Judgement
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[26] 1978 A 'procedure' under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be arbitrary, unfair, oppressive, or unreasonable.

A law depriving a person of 'personal liberty' must not violate any of the Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

This judgement thus overruled A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)[27] Court upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, with the exception of Section 14, which restricted disclosure of the grounds of detention, which was deemed unconstitutional.
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan[28] 1997 Establishment of the Vishakha Guidelines to handle sexual harassments of women at workplace until sufficient legislation is implemented for the purpose.
This ruling was superseded by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013
Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh[29] 2006 A person is not convictable under Section 376 2e (Raping a pregnant women) if he had certain knowledge of the fact that the victim is pregnant. The knowledge of the fact must be proven to certainty and not possibility. Consequently, in this case, the accused was sentenced under Section 376 (1), and was sentenced to milder punishment.
Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar[30]

or The Arnesh Kumar Guidelines

2014 Arrests should be an exception, in cases where the punishment is less than seven years of imprisonment.[31]

Constitutional jurisprudence

The Supreme Court of India, which is the highest judicial body in India, has decided many leading cases of Constitutional jurisprudence, establishing Constitution Benches for hearing the same. Given below are a list of some leading cases.

Name of case Year Judgement
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan[32] 1951 Struck down the Communal G.O. of 1927 by the Madras government rejecting caste-based reservations in government jobs and college seats.
This in-turn led to formulation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution which clarified that right to equality does not bar the enactment of laws which provide "special consideration" for weaker sections of society.
Golaknath v. State Of Punjab[33] 1967 Struck down Parliament's power to amend all parts of the Constitution, including Part III related to Fundamental Rights. The judgement left Parliament with no power to curtail Fundamental Rights.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala[34] 1973 Formally outlined and adopted the Basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution by holding that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain 1975 Examined the validity of the 39th Amendment to the Constitution of India and struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 329A, reinforcing the basic structure doctrine and reaffirming that no one, not even the Prime Minister, is above the law and that the judiciary has the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution and safeguard its fundamental principles.
The judgement overturned Allahabad High Court decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain allowing Indira Gandhi to continue serving as the Prime Minister of India.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India[35] 1980 Clarifying the Basic Structure doctrine, the Court ruled that the power of the parliament to amend the constitution is limited by the constitution. Hence the parliament cannot exercise this limited power to grant itself an unlimited power, rendering clauses 4 and 5 of the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution (1976) void.
Olga Tellis Vs. BMC[36] 1985 The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to livelihood.
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka[37] 1992 Established right to education as an integral part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21.
Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India[38] 1992 Upheld that caste was an acceptable indicator of backwardness.
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India[39] 1994 Court discussed at length provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India (President's Rule) and related issues. This helped put an end to the arbitrary impositions seen until then.
Sarla Mudgal, & others. v. Union of India[40] 1995 Principles against the practice of solemnizing second marriage by conversion to Islam, with first marriage not being dissolved. It highlighted the need for a uniform civil code.
Three Judges Cases 1981 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India[41]

Established the Collegium system of the Indian Judicial System.

1993 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India[42]

Struck down the 99th Amendment of the Constitution of India and the proposal of the National Judicial Appointments Commission.

1998 In re Special reference 1[43]

Reply by the Chief Justice of India to the questions raised by President of India K. R. Narayanan regarding the Collegium system.

Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India[44] 2021 Rejected appeals to provide relief to Illegal Rohingya immigrants from deportation.
Association for Democratic Reforms vs Union of India & Ors. 2024 Struck down the Union’s 2018 Electoral Bonds scheme. The Court held that the scheme violated the voters’ right to information enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and that the scheme could lead to Quid pro quo situations.[45]

Policy and Administration

Name of the case Year Judgement
T. S. R. Subramanian v. Union of India[46] 2013 Officers of the IAS, other All India Services and other civil servants are not bound to follow oral directives, as they "undermine credibility".
Lily Thomas v. Union of India along with Lok Prahari v. Union of India[47] 2013 MP, MLA/MLC who is convicted of a crime and given a minimum of two years', loses membership of the House with immediate effect.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India[48] 2018 Chief Minister, and not the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, is the executive head of the National Capital Territory (NCT) government.
This overruled the Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India in the Delhi High Court (2016) : The Lt Governor of Delhi exercised complete control of all matters regarding National Capital Territory of Delhi.

Law enforcement

Name of the case Year Judgement
Prakash Singh v. Union of India[49] 2006 Police reforms in India:[50]
Vineet Narain v. Union of India[51] 1997–1998 Strengthened independence of CBI and Enforcement Directorate; abolished Single Directive and introduced judicially monitored investigation guidelines.
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh[52] 2013 Held that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC if information discloses a cognizable offence; preliminary inquiry only in exceptional cases.
D. K. Basu v. State of West Bengal[53] 1997 Issued binding guidelines to prevent custodial torture & deaths including arrest memo, information to relatives, medical examination, and production before magistrate.
Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh[54] 1994 Held that police power of arrest is not absolute and reasons for arrest must be justified; protection against arbitrary arrest.
Nandini Satpathy v. P. L. Dani[55] 1978 Expanded protection against self-incrimination during police interrogation; recognised right to silence and right to consult lawyer during questioning.
State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma[56] 1991 Reaffirmed wide powers of police to investigate; courts should not quash FIR/investigation merely on allegations of mala fides without strong evidence.

Environmental law

Name of the case Year Judgement
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India 1987 Introduced absolute liability principle for hazardous industries, replacing English strict liability rule, and established that compensation must correlate with industry’s capacity.
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.[57] 1996 The court ordered creation of Taj Trapezium Zone to protect Taj Mahal from pollution—applying precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle for protection of cultural heritage setting precedent for future rulings on environmental issues.
M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath[58] 1996 Established Public Trust Doctrine in Indian law, holding that natural resources like rivers are held in trust by government for public use and cannot be exploited for private gain.

Established new tests and regulations

Name of the case Year Judgement
RG Anand v. Deluxe Films[59] 1978 Copyright protection does not extend to mere ideas. Where theme is same but presented differently, there can be no question of infringement.
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib[60] 1981 Laid down a test to determine whether an individual, corporation, or society was an instrumentality or agency of the government.
Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd.[61] 2004 The Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999 is applicable to the regulation of domain names.
Swasthya Adhikar Manch v. Union of India[62] 2013 Laid down the regulations regarding Clinical trials held by Contract research organizations to protect participants.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Meaning of leading case in the English Dictionary. Retrieved 2021-11-22.
  2. ↑ A. W. B. Simpson, Leading Cases in the Common Law, Clarendon Press, 1996 [1] Template:Webarchive
  3. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  4. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  5. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  6. ↑ From Shah Bano to Salma, Anand, Utkarsh(Mar 26, 2010). Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  7. ↑ The ghost of Shah Bano, Rashid Faisal, Malik. Business & Economy. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  8. ↑ 1985: Shah Bano case, Ali, Subhashini(Dec 26, 2005). Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  9. ↑ Cementing of dynastic democracy(29 April 2012). Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  10. ↑ What If Rajiv Hadn't Caved In To The Zealots?. Outlook India(23 August 2004). Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  11. ↑ Altered Destinations: Self, Society, and Nation in India{{#if:|, {{{last}}}}. Anthem Press(2009). ISBN 978-1-84331-797-5
  12. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  13. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  14. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  15. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  16. ↑ Supreme Court rights old judicial wrongs in landmark Right to Privacy verdict, shows State its rightful place. Firstpost(29 August 2017). Retrieved 31 December 2021.
  17. ↑ ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla Template:Bracket AIR 1207 Template:Webarchive (28 April 1976), S.C. (India)
  18. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  19. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  20. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  21. ↑ 1st in India & Asia, and 2nd globally, Tamil Nadu bans sex-selective surgeries for infants. The Print(31 August 2019). Retrieved 15 May 2020.
  22. ↑ Tamil Nadu Becomes First State to Ban So‑Called Corrective Surgery on Intersex Babies. The Swaddle(30 August 2019). Retrieved 15 May 2020.
  23. ↑ INTERSEX LEGAL MAPPING REPORT (2023). www.ilga.org Geneva(2019-04-29). Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  24. ↑ Indian Court Decides In Favor of Informed Consent Rights for Intersex People. The Human Rights Watch, The United States(2019-04-29). Retrieved 2023-12-11.
  25. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  26. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  27. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  28. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  29. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  30. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  31. ↑ Police Officials To Face Action If Arrest Procedure Under Sec 41A CrPC & 'Arnesh Kumar' Guidelines Are Violated : Telangana High Court. www.livelaw.in(21 November 2021). Retrieved 21 November 2021.
  32. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  33. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  34. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  35. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  36. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  37. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  38. ↑ Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India Template:Bracket AIR 1993 SC 477 Template:Webarchive (16 December 1992), S.C. (India)
  39. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  40. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  41. ↑ S.P. Gupta v. Union of India Template:Bracket AIR 1982 SC 149 Template:Webarchive (30 December 1981), S.C. (India)
  42. ↑ Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India Template:Bracket 4 SCC 441 Template:Webarchive (6 October 1993), S.C. (India)
  43. ↑ In re Special reference 1 Template:Bracket AIR 1999 SC 1 Template:Webarchive (28 October 1998), S.C. (India)
  44. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  45. ↑ Electoral Bonds Constitution Bench | Judgement Summary, Kashyap, Gauri. Supreme Court Observer(2024-02-15). Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  46. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  47. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  48. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  49. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  50. ↑ Prakash Singh vs Union of India (Supreme court rulings compliance).
  51. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  52. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  53. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  54. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  55. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  56. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  57. ↑ M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 December, 1996. indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2025-06-18.
  58. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  59. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  60. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
  61. ↑ Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Template:Bracket 3 AWC 2366 SC (6 May 2004), S.C. (India)
  62. ↑ Template:Cite LIIofIndia
Retrieved from "https://indianpedia.org/index.php?title=List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_India&oldid=513044"
Discover more