Top 10 Landmark Constitutional Law Judgments Every Indian Law Student Must Memorize

1. Why Constitutional Cases Define Your Semester Scores

In Constitutional Law papers (Paper Codes K-1002 and K-2002 at Chaudhary Charan Singh University), theoretical answers that fail to cite authoritative Supreme Court decisions rarely receive passing marks in Section C. Constitutional law is inherently judge-made through constitutional interpretation.

2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 226

Bench Strength: 13 Judges (Largest constitutional bench in Indian history, decided by a 7:6 majority).

Central Issue: Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution under Article 368, including Fundamental Rights?

Ratio Decidendi: Parliament possesses constituent power to amend any provision of the Constitution under Article 368, but this power is not unlimited. Parliament cannot alter, damage, or destroy the Basic Structure or essential framework of the Constitution (such as democracy, rule of law, separation of powers, secularism, and judicial review).

3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248

Bench Strength: 7 Judges.

Central Issue: Does the impounding of a passport violate Article 21, and must "procedure established by law" satisfy natural justice?

Ratio Decidendi: Overruling the restrictive literalist approach of A.K. Gopalan, the Supreme Court held that the "procedure established by law" under Article 21 cannot be arbitrary, oppressive, or fanciful; it must be just, fair, and reasonable. Articles 14, 19, and 21 form a mutually reinforcing Golden Triangle.

4. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625

Central Issue: Validity of Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.

Ratio Decidendi: Struck down Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment. A limited amending power is itself a basic feature of the Constitution, and Parliament cannot convert a limited amending power into an absolute, unlimited power. The harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV) is a core basic structure element.

5. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217

Also Known As: The Mandal Commission Case (9-Judge Bench).

Ratio Decidendi: Upheld 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) under Article 16(4), but subject to the exclusion of the "Creamy Layer". Affirmed that total reservations under ordinary circumstances must not exceed the 50% ceiling.

6. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

Bench Strength: 9 Judges (Unanimous 9:0 ruling).

Ratio Decidendi: Unanimously declared that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, as well as being part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.