Case Brief: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore & Others
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts:
Kesavananda Bharati, a religious leader, challenged Kerala’s attempts to impose land reforms that affected his property rights, arguing these violated his fundamental rights.
Legal Issue:
Can Parliament amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights? Is there any limit on its amending power?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held by a 7:6 majority that Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, but cannot alter its “basic structure.” This Basic Structure Doctrine prevents changes to fundamental features like democracy, secularism, separation of powers, and the rule of law.
Significance:
This case protects the core values of the Constitution and limits arbitrary constitutional amendments.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without giving her a reason.
Legal Issue:
Does the procedure for depriving personal liberty under Article 21 have to be “just, fair, and reasonable”?
Judgment:
The court expanded Article 21’s scope, stating that “procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and not arbitrary, effectively incorporating due process principles into Indian law.
Significance:
It broadened fundamental rights protections, ensuring personal liberty cannot be curtailed without fair procedure.
3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Facts:
Several state governments were dismissed by the Centre using Article 356 (President’s Rule).
Legal Issue:
When can Article 356 be invoked, and can the dismissal of elected governments be challenged?
Judgment:
The court ruled that Article 356 is subject to judicial review. State governments can only be dismissed on valid grounds, safeguarding federalism and democracy.
Significance:
It curtailed misuse of Article 356 and strengthened state autonomy.
4. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Facts:
Bhanwari Devi, a social worker, was sexually harassed but the law lacked provisions for workplace harassment.
Legal Issue:
Is sexual harassment at workplace a violation of fundamental rights, and what guidelines can protect women till a law is passed?
Judgment:
The court recognized sexual harassment as a violation of Article 14, 19, and 21, and issued guidelines (Vishaka Guidelines) as binding law till Parliament enacted legislation.
Significance:
Pioneered legal protection against workplace sexual harassment in India.
5. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
Facts:
Reservation policy for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) was challenged.
Legal Issue:
Is the 27% reservation for OBCs constitutional?
Judgment:
The court upheld OBC reservation but set a 50% ceiling on total reservations to maintain equality. Also ruled that “creamy layer” within OBCs should be excluded.
Significance:
Balanced affirmative action with merit and equality principles.
RELATED Blog
0 comments