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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
The right to marry is a statutory right, not a constitutional right. Therefore, only Parliament can recognize the marriage between non-heterosexual couples.
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)[23] 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.
Establishment of the Vishakha Guidelines to handle sexual harassments of women at workplace until sufficient legislature is implemented for the purpose.
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.
Arrests should be an exception, in cases where the punishment is less than seven years of imprisonment.[27]
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.
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.
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.
Added clarifications about the Basic Structure doctrine. 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.
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.
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.
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.[42]
Chief Minister and not the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi 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.