Table of Contents
Important supreme court judgments UPSC
Important supreme court judgments UPSC is important for UPSC Main exam preparation. The article will help candidates to enhance and support the answer in UPSC Main Examination.
Golaknath case (1967)
The Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament cannot take away any of the Fundamental Rights.
Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
The Supreme Court declared a law can be declared unconstitutional and invalid if it violates the basic structure of the constitution. Judicial review is a basic structure of the Constitution and hence, cannot be taken away.
Kesavananda Bharati case is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution.
The doctrine forms the basis of the power of the Indian judiciary to review and override amendments to the Constitution of India enacted by the Indian parliament.
The court held that while the Parliament has ‘wide’ powers, it did not have the power to destroy the basic elements or fundamental features of the constitution.
Minerva Mills Case (1980)
In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court provided key clarifications on the interpretation of the basic structure doctrine. The court unanimously ruled that the power of the Parliament of India to amend the constitution is limited by the constitution.
Hence the parliament cannot exercise this limited power to grant itself unlimited power.
In addition, a majority of the court also held that the parliament’s power to amend is not a power to destroy. Hence the parliament cannot emasculate the fundamental rights of individuals, including the right to liberty and equality.
Other Important Supermen Court Judgements UPSC
ADM Jabalpur Case
ADM Jabalpur case is a landmark judgment pertaining to the Habeas corpus case decreed during the Emergency of 1975 to 1977.
As per the judgment, a person’s right to not be unlawfully detained (i.e. habeas corpus) can be suspended. This judgment received a lot of criticism since it reduced the importance attached to Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution.
The landmark judgment of Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)
The Supreme Court has stated that the landmark judgment of Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), which dealt with police reforms.
Prakash Singh, who served as DGP of UP Police filed a PIL in the Supreme Court post-retirement, in 1996, seeking police reforms.
Recommendations of Supreme court in Prakash Singh judgment: Fixing the tenure and selection of the DGP to avoid situations where officers about to retire in a few months are given the post.
In order to ensure no political interference, a minimum tenure was sought for the Inspector General of Police so that they are not transferred mid-term by politicians.
Postings of officers should be done by Police Establishment Boards (PEB) comprising police officers and senior bureaucrats to insulate powers of postings and transfers from political leaders.
Set up State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA) to give a platform where common people aggrieved by police action could approach.
Indra Sawhney Case
OBC Reservation is OK but with a provision of creamy layer. Reservation must not exceed 50 percent. Reservations cannot be applied in promotions.