ऐतिहासिक निर्णय एवं केस लॉ
Comprehensive analysis of landmark judgments from the Supreme Court of India, Punjab & Haryana High Court, and other constitutional courts — with facts, ratio decidendi, and practical impact.
पवन कुमार बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
(1996) 2 SCC 340 — Supreme Court of India
Pay fixation on promotion must give a minimum benefit. An employee promoted to a higher post cannot draw less pay than what was being drawn in the lower post plus one increment.
Read Full Analysisकॉमन कॉज बनाम भारत संघ
AIR 1996 SC 3081 — Supreme Court of India
Political parties must maintain accounts and disclose sources of funding. Transparency in election funding is essential for democracy.
Read Full Analysisभूप सिंह बनाम राम सिंह मेजर
(1995) 5 SCC 709 — Supreme Court of India
Consolidation proceedings are final and binding. Title settled during consolidation cannot be reopened in civil court. Consolidation officer acts as a court of competent jurisdiction.
Read Full Analysisरूपन देओल बजाज बनाम के.पी.एस. गिल
AIR 1996 SC 309 — Supreme Court of India
Outraging the modesty of a woman — even touching or patting constitutes an offence. No person, however powerful, is above the law.
Read Full Analysisसरला मुद्गल बनाम भारत संघ
AIR 1995 SC 1531 — Supreme Court of India
A Hindu converting to Islam solely to contract a second marriage commits bigamy under Section 494 IPC. Strong call for Uniform Civil Code under Article 44.
Read Full Analysisसूचना प्रसारण मंत्री बनाम बंगाल क्रिकेट संघ
AIR 1995 SC 1236, (1995) 2 SCC 161 — Supreme Court of India
Airwaves are public property. Broadcasting freedom is part of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). Government monopoly over broadcasting is unconstitutional.
Read Full Analysisआर. राजगोपाल बनाम तमिलनाडु राज्य
AIR 1995 SC 264, (1994) 6 SCC 632 — Supreme Court of India
Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. Once a matter becomes part of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists.
Read Full Analysisभूप सिंह बनाम राम सिंह मेजर
(1995) 5 SCC 709 — Supreme Court of India
Limitation for filing a suit for possession based on title is 12 years from the date when the right to sue accrues. Adverse possession requires open, continuous, hostile possession for 12 years.
Read Full Analysisउपभोक्ता शिक्षा एवं अनुसंधान केंद्र बनाम भारत संघ
(1995) 3 SCC 42 — Supreme Court of India
Right to life under Article 21 includes right to health, hygienic working conditions, and medical care during and after employment. Employers must ensure safe working conditions.
Read Full Analysisएस.पी. चेंगलवराय नायडू बनाम जगन्नाथ
(1994) 1 SCC 1 — Supreme Court of India
A judgment or decree obtained by fraud is a nullity. Courts will not permit a party to benefit from fraud, suppression of facts, or misrepresentation. Fraud vitiates all transactions.
Read Full Analysisउन्नी कृष्णन बनाम आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य
(1993) 1 SCC 645 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Right to education is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21. Every child has a right to free education up to the age of 14 years.
Read Full Analysisनिलाबती बेहरा बनाम उड़ीसा राज्य
AIR 1993 SC 1960 — Supreme Court of India
State is liable to pay compensation for custodial death as a public law remedy under Article 32/226, independent of any civil or criminal proceedings.
Read Full Analysisगुरु अमरजीत सिंह बनाम रत्तन चंद
(1993) 4 SCC 10 — Supreme Court of India
Specific performance of agreement to sell is a discretionary relief. Purchaser must prove readiness and willingness to perform throughout. Time is not essence unless expressly stated.
Read Full Analysisराष्ट्रीय अंधजन संघ बनाम यू.पी.एस.सी.
(1993) 2 SCC 411 — Supreme Court of India
Recruitment bodies must follow fair and transparent selection processes. Any irregularity in the recruitment process vitiates the entire selection.
Read Full Analysisप्रबंध निदेशक, ECIL बनाम बी. कारुणाकर
(1993) 4 SCC 727 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Non-supply of inquiry report before imposing punishment in departmental proceedings violates principles of natural justice. The delinquent employee has a right to receive the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority passes final order.
Read Full Analysisए.आर. अंतुले बनाम आर.एस. नायक
AIR 1992 SC 1701 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21. Guidelines laid down for determining when delay violates this right.
Read Full Analysisहरियाणा राज्य बनाम पियारा सिंह
(1992) 4 SCC 118 — Supreme Court of India
Temporary or ad hoc employees who have served for a long period cannot be terminated without following principles of natural justice. They are entitled to be heard before termination.
Read Full Analysisहरियाणा राज्य बनाम पियारा सिंह
(1992) 4 SCC 118 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Government cannot relax age/qualification conditions for individual candidates. Relaxation must be general and not person-specific, otherwise it violates Article 14.
Read Full Analysisहरियाणा राज्य बनाम भजन लाल
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 — Supreme Court of India
Seven categories of cases where High Court can exercise power under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) to quash FIR/criminal proceedings. The most cited judgment on quashing.
Read Full Analysisशंकरसन दास बनाम भारत संघ
(1991) 3 SCC 47 — Supreme Court of India
A candidate on the select list has no indefeasible right to appointment. The State is not bound to fill all available vacancies. However, the State cannot act arbitrarily or in a mala fide manner.
Read Full Analysisभारत संघ बनाम के.वी. जानकीरामन
(1991) 4 SCC 109 — Supreme Court of India
A government employee under suspension or facing disciplinary/criminal proceedings cannot claim promotion as of right but is entitled to be considered. Sealed cover procedure established.
Read Full Analysisभारत संघ बनाम के.वी. जानकीरमन
(1991) 4 SCC 109 — Supreme Court of India
Sealed cover procedure — where departmental proceedings are pending, employee can be considered for promotion but result kept in sealed cover pending outcome of proceedings.
Read Full Analysisसीधी भर्ती द्वितीय श्रेणी अभियंता अधिकारी संघ बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य
(1990) 2 SCC 715 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Seniority between direct recruits and promotees must be determined by quota-rota rule. Once the quota is filled, seniority is determined by the date of continuous officiation in the cadre.
Read Full Analysisसीधी भर्ती वर्ग-II इंजीनियरिंग अधिकारी बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य
(1990) 2 SCC 715 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Seniority between direct recruits and promotees must be determined by quota-rota rule. Length of continuous officiation determines seniority within each category.
Read Full Analysisपंजाब राज्य बनाम जोगिंदर सिंह
(1990) 2 SCC 484 — Supreme Court of India
Transfer is an incident of service and does not require reasons. However, transfer cannot be punitive or motivated by mala fides.
Read Full Analysisपं. परमानंद कटारा बनाम भारत संघ
(1989) 4 SCC 286 — Supreme Court of India
Every doctor has a professional obligation to provide immediate medical treatment to an injured person. No procedural law can interfere with this humanitarian duty.
Read Full Analysisकेहर सिंह बनाम भारत संघ
AIR 1989 SC 653, (1989) 1 SCC 204 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Presidential pardon power under Article 72 is wide enough to examine even the merits of the conviction. The President can go into the evidence and re-examine the case.
Read Full Analysisरमेश दलाल बनाम भारत संघ (तमस मामला)
AIR 1988 SC 775, (1988) 1 SCC 668 — Supreme Court of India
Screening of a film depicting partition violence (Tamas) is within the ambit of freedom of expression. Cannot be banned merely because it may offend some groups.
Read Full Analysisआत्मा राम मित्तल बनाम ईश्वर सिंह पुनिया
(1988) 4 SCC 284 — Supreme Court of India
Once a tenant, always a tenant — tenant cannot deny landlord's title after being inducted as tenant. Estoppel under Section 116 of Evidence Act.
Read Full Analysisसचिदानंद पांडेय बनाम पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य
(1987) 2 SCC 295 — Supreme Court of India
Courts should give due regard to environmental protection. When government takes a conscious decision aware of environmental implications, courts will not interfere unless mala fides proved.
Read Full Analysisटी.आर. कपूर बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
(1987) 2 SCC 58 — Supreme Court of India
When a government servant is acquitted in criminal proceedings, the employer cannot take departmental action on the same charges unless there are compelling reasons. Acquittal must be given due weight.
Read Full Analysisडॉ. उपेंद्र बक्शी बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य (II)
(1986) 4 SCC 106 — Supreme Court of India
State directed to constitute Board of Visitors and formulate rehabilitation programme for inmates of protective homes. Living conditions must meet basic human dignity.
Read Full Analysisभारत के महान्यायवादी बनाम लछमा देवी
AIR 1986 SC 467 — Supreme Court of India
Execution of death sentence by public hanging is barbaric, inhuman, and violative of Article 21. Public hanging is unconstitutional regardless of any Jail Manual provision.
Read Full Analysisनरेन्द्र चढ्ढा बनाम भारत संघ
(1986) 2 SCC 157 — Supreme Court of India
An employee on deputation retains a lien on the parent cadre post. Period of deputation counts for seniority and promotion in the parent cadre unless rules provide otherwise.
Read Full Analysisशीला बार्से बनाम भारत संघ
(1986) 3 SCC 632 — Supreme Court of India
Children cannot be kept in jails. Directions issued for establishment of juvenile courts, children's homes, and appointment of duty counsel for children in conflict with law.
Read Full Analysisरत्तन लाल बनाम हरियाणा राज्य
(1985) 4 SCC 43 — Supreme Court of India
When dismissal is set aside by court, the employee is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The burden is on the employer to prove that back wages should not be paid.
Read Full Analysisओल्गा टेलिस बनाम बॉम्बे म्युनिसिपल कॉर्पोरेशन
AIR 1986 SC 180, (1985) 3 SCC 545 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. Pavement dwellers cannot be evicted without due process and alternative arrangements.
Read Full Analysisमोहम्मद अहमद खान बनाम शाह बानो बेगम
AIR 1985 SC 945 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Personal law cannot override statutory provisions meant to prevent destitution.
Read Full Analysisइंडियन एक्सप्रेस न्यूज़पेपर्स बनाम भारत संघ
AIR 1986 SC 515, (1985) 1 SCC 641 — Supreme Court of India
Freedom of press is an integral part of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Government cannot impose excessive taxes or duties to cripple newspapers.
Read Full Analysisनीरजा चौधरी बनाम मध्य प्रदेश राज्य
(1984) 3 SCC 243 — Supreme Court of India
Release of bonded labourers without rehabilitation is cruelty. The State must ensure identification, release AND rehabilitation of bonded labourers.
Read Full Analysisबी.एस. मिन्हास बनाम भारतीय सांख्यिकी संस्थान
(1984) 1 SCC 131 — Supreme Court of India
An institution receiving government grants is "State" under Article 12. Employees of such bodies are entitled to Article 14 and 16 protection against arbitrary termination.
Read Full Analysisबंधुआ मुक्ति मोर्चा बनाम भारत संघ
(1984) 3 SCC 161 — Supreme Court of India
PIL can be initiated by any public-spirited person. Court need not follow adversarial procedure in PIL. Bonded labour system violates Articles 21 and 23.
Read Full Analysisडी.एस. नकारा बनाम भारत संघ
AIR 1983 SC 130, (1983) 1 SCC 305 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Pension is a right, not a bounty or gratuitous payment. Classification of pensioners into pre- and post-cutoff date categories for different pension benefits violates Article 14.
Read Full Analysisडॉ. उपेंद्र बक्शी बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य (I)
(1983) 2 SCC 308 — Supreme Court of India
Inmates of protective homes have a right to live with dignity under Article 21. State must ensure proper management, medical facilities, and humane conditions.
Read Full Analysisटी.वी. वतीश्वरन बनाम तमिलनाडु राज्य
AIR 1983 SC 361 — Supreme Court of India
Delay exceeding two years in execution of death sentence entitles the prisoner to invoke Article 21 for commutation to life imprisonment.
Read Full Analysisआंध्र प्रदेश सरकार बनाम थुम्मला कृष्णा राव
(1982) 2 SCC 134 — Supreme Court of India
Government land assigned to a person for specific purpose (like cultivation) does not confer ownership. The assignee gets only the right to use the land for the stated purpose.
Read Full Analysisएस.पी. गुप्ता बनाम भारत संघ (न्यायाधीश तबादला मामला)
AIR 1982 SC 149 — Supreme Court of India (7-Judge Bench)
Any member of the public can file PIL for enforcement of fundamental rights. Concept of locus standi broadened. Judicial independence and appointment process examined.
Read Full Analysisआर.एस. मकाशी बनाम आई.एम. मेनन
(1982) 1 SCC 379 — Supreme Court of India
Reversion from a promotional post must follow seniority in the lower cadre. Last person promoted must be the first to be reverted (last come, first go).
Read Full Analysisबचन सिंह बनाम पंजाब राज्य
AIR 1982 SC 1325, (1982) 3 SCC 24 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Death penalty is constitutional but must be imposed only in the "rarest of rare" cases. Life imprisonment is the rule; death sentence is the exception.
Read Full Analysisरणधीर सिंह बनाम भारत संघ
(1982) 1 SCC 618 — Supreme Court of India
Equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal derivable from Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) read together.
Read Full Analysisखत्री (II) बनाम बिहार राज्य
(1981) 1 SCC 635 — Supreme Court of India
Right to free legal aid is a constitutional obligation. Magistrates must inform accused of this right at first production. State cannot plead financial inability.
Read Full Analysisकिशोर सिंह बनाम राजस्थान राज्य
AIR 1981 SC 625 — Supreme Court of India
Solitary confinement and use of iron fetters on prisoners is inhuman and violates Article 21. To be resorted to only in the rarest of rare cases.
Read Full Analysisहुसैनआरा खातून (III) बनाम गृह सचिव, बिहार राज्य
(1980) 1 SCC 93 — Supreme Court of India
Undertrials who have served more than the maximum sentence for their alleged offence must be released. Women in "protective custody" must be freed and sent to welfare homes.
Read Full Analysisप्रेम शंकर शुक्ला बनाम दिल्ली प्रशासन
AIR 1980 SC 1535, (1980) 3 SCC 526 — Supreme Court of India
Handcuffing of prisoners is prima facie inhuman and unconstitutional under Article 21 except in extreme circumstances with recorded reasons.
Read Full Analysisमिनर्वा मिल्स बनाम भारत संघ
AIR 1980 SC 1789, (1980) 3 SCC 625 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
The 42nd Amendment provisions giving Parliament unlimited amending power and excluding judicial review are unconstitutional. Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of basic structure.
Read Full Analysisहुसैनआरा खातून (V) बनाम गृह सचिव, बिहार राज्य
AIR 1979 SC 1360 — Supreme Court of India
Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21. Accused should be released on personal bond without sureties if they have community ties and no risk of absconding.
Read Full Analysisएम.एच. होस्कोट बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य
(1978) 3 SCC 544 — Supreme Court of India
Right to free legal aid is a fundamental right under Article 21. Jail authorities must provide copy of judgment to prisoners in time to file appeal. State must provide free legal services.
Read Full Analysisमनेका गाँधी बनाम भारत संघ
AIR 1978 SC 597 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Article 21 requires procedure to be fair, just, and reasonable — not merely "procedure established by law." Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interconnected and form a golden triangle.
Read Full Analysisसुनील बत्रा बनाम दिल्ली प्रशासन
AIR 1978 SC 1675, (1978) 4 SCC 494 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Prisoners retain their fundamental rights behind bars. Prison walls do not keep out fundamental rights. Solitary confinement and bar fetters violate Article 21.
Read Full Analysisबिश्वनाथ प्रसाद राधेश्याम बनाम दुर्गा प्रसाद
AIR 1974 SC 117 — Supreme Court of India
A sale by a Hindu father of joint family property is voidable at the instance of the sons only if it is not for legal necessity or benefit of the estate. The burden is on the sons to prove absence of legal necessity.
Read Full Analysisकेशवानंद भारती बनाम केरल राज्य
AIR 1973 SC 1461, (1973) 4 SCC 225 — Supreme Court of India (13-Judge Bench)
Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure. The basic structure doctrine is the most significant constitutional principle in India.
Read Full Analysisमाधवराव सिंधिया बनाम भारत संघ
AIR 1971 SC 530 — Supreme Court of India (11-Judge Bench)
The President cannot unilaterally derecognize rulers and abolish privy purses without constitutional amendment. Executive action cannot override constitutional guarantees.
Read Full Analysisनायर सर्विस सोसाइटी बनाम के.सी. अलेक्जेंडर
AIR 1968 SC 1165 — Supreme Court of India
Partition of joint family property does not require registration if effected by metes and bounds. Oral partition is valid for ancestral property.
Read Full Analysisनायर सर्विस सोसाइटी बनाम के.सी. अलेक्जेंडर
AIR 1968 SC 1165 — Supreme Court of India
A tenant who holds over after expiry of lease period becomes a tenant-at-sufferance. The landlord can evict such tenant by giving reasonable notice. Tenancy rights are governed by the terms of the lease.
Read Full Analysisमैसूर राज्य बनाम एस.वी. नारायणप्पा
AIR 1967 SC 1071 — Supreme Court of India
When seniority is determined by date of appointment, an employee who joins earlier is senior even if the appointment order of another was issued earlier. Date of joining the post matters.
Read Full Analysisमैसूर राज्य बनाम एस.वी. नारायणप्पा
AIR 1967 SC 1071 — Supreme Court of India
Seniority of government servants must be determined as per the rules prevailing at the time of appointment. Seniority cannot be altered retrospectively to the prejudice of employees.
Read Full Analysisसतवंत सिंह साहनी बनाम डी. रामरत्नम
AIR 1967 SC 1836 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21. Refusal or impounding of passport without following due process violates Articles 14 and 21.
Read Full Analysisलछमन सिंह बनाम हज़ारा सिंह (पंजाब रीति-रिवाज)
AIR 1966 SC 1387 — Supreme Court of India
Under Punjab custom, ancestral agricultural land devolves through agnatic succession. The Hindu Succession Act prevails over custom for Hindu women's inheritance rights.
Read Full Analysisपंजाब राज्य बनाम जगदीप सिंह
AIR 1964 SC 521 — Supreme Court of India
Transfer is an incident of government service. No government employee has a vested right to remain posted at a particular place. Transfer orders are not justiciable unless vitiated by mala fides.
Read Full Analysisपंजाब राज्य बनाम जोगिंदर सिंह
AIR 1963 SC 913 — Supreme Court of India
Transfer is an incident of service. No government employee has a vested right to remain posted at a particular place. Transfer orders can only be challenged on grounds of mala fides.
Read Full Analysisके.एम. नानावती बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य
AIR 1962 SC 605 — Supreme Court of India
The Sessions Judge can disagree with a jury verdict if no reasonable body of men could have reached it. This case effectively ended jury trials in India.
Read Full Analysisमद्रास राज्य बनाम चंपकम दोराइराजन
AIR 1951 SC 226 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Communal reservation in educational institutions based on caste/religion violates fundamental right to equality. Fundamental Rights prevail over Directive Principles.
Read Full Analysisरमेश थप्पर बनाम मद्रास राज्य
AIR 1950 SC 124 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes freedom of press and circulation of publications. Restrictions must fall within Article 19(2).
Read Full AnalysisExpert legal research, judgment analysis, and case preparation with 22+ years of High Court practice.