NLNET Law-VerseThe Universe of Law
UGC NET LAW (058) · UNIT 02 · MODULE 5: QUICK-REFERENCE TABLES: ARTICLES, CASES AND AMENDMENTS · TOPIC 17

Landmark Case Laws: Year and Importance

Two case tables, one for constitutional law and one for administrative law, each with the year and a one-line holding.

  • 2 sub-topics
  • 6 min read
  • Topic 17 of 25

What this topic covers

2 sub-topics, in the order to study them. Tap one to jump to it.

  1. 17.1Constitutional LawCase Year One-Line Importance A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950 Narrow interpretation of Art. 21 — any procedure prescribed by law suffices State of Madras v. Champakam…
  2. 17.2Administrative LawCase Year One-Line Importance Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal 1852 Pecuniary bias automatically disqualifies adjudicator — no proof of actual influence needed Cooper v.…

Revision mode hides the full explanations and keeps each section's key terms, lists and tables and the Memory Capsule. Use it from your second read onward.

17.1Constitutional Law#

In brief

Case Year One-Line Importance A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950 Narrow interpretation of Art. 21 — any procedure prescribed by law suffices State of Madras v. Champakam…

Case Year One-Line Importance
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950 Narrow interpretation of Art. 21 — any procedure prescribed by law suffices
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan 1951 FRs prevail over DPSPs; prompted 1st Amendment adding Art. 15(4)
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India 1951 Constitutional amendments are NOT 'law' under Art. 13
In re Delhi Laws Act 1951 Excessive delegation is unconstitutional; Parliament cannot abdicate essential legislative function
Bhikhaji Narain Dhakras v. State of MP 1955 Doctrine of Eclipse — pre-constitutional law inconsistent with FR becomes dormant, not void
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India 1957 Doctrine of Severability — only unconstitutional part of law struck down
Berubari Union Case 1960 Preamble NOT part of Constitution (overruled by Kesavananda Bharati)
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 Twin tests of reasonable classification under Article 14 laid down
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab 1967 Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights (overruled by Kesavananda Bharati)
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 1973 Basic Structure Doctrine; Preamble is part of Constitution; Parliament can amend but not destroy basic structure
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab 1974 President and Governor are constitutional heads; act on CoM advice in normal matters
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu 1974 Arbitrariness violates Art. 14; equality is antithetic to arbitrariness
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain 1975 Free and fair elections is basic structure; Rule of Law is basic structure; 39th Amendment struck down
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 'Golden triangle' (Arts. 14, 19, 21); procedure under Art. 21 must be just, fair, reasonable
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar 1979 Speedy trial is a component of Art. 21; landmark PIL on undertrial prisoners
Minerva Mills v. Union of India 1980 Harmony between Parts III and IV is basic structure; absolute primacy of DPSPs struck down
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp 1985 Right to livelihood is part of Art. 21
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India 1984 SC ordered identification, release, rehabilitation of bonded labourers under Arts. 21 and 23
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Reservations capped at 50%; creamy layer exclusion; Mandal Commission upheld with limits
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India 1994 Art. 356 is justiciable; Assembly in suspended animation; secularism is basic structure
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka 2002 Rights of minority and non-minority educational institutions; 11-judge bench
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu 2007 Laws in 9th Schedule after April 24, 1973 can be challenged if they violate basic structure
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 2017 Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Art. 21; 9-judge bench unanimous
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 2018 Section 377 IPC read down — consensual same-sex relations between adults decriminalised
Common Cause v. Union of India 2018 Right to die with dignity; passive euthanasia and advance directives (living will) recognised
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India 2022 103rd Amendment (10% EWS reservation) upheld by 3:2 majority
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh 2016 Governor cannot advance Assembly session contrary to CoM advice
B.P. Singhal v. Union of India 2010 Removal of Governor cannot be arbitrary or for political reasons
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India 2006 Dissolution of Bihar Assembly by Governor struck down as mala fide
Sita Soren v. Union of India 2024 MPs taking bribes to vote have NO immunity under Art. 105; overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu 1992 Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection) upheld; Speaker's decision subject to judicial review
Selvi v. State of Karnataka 2010 Narco-analysis, brain mapping, polygraph without consent violate Art. 20(3)
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India 2002 Candidates must disclose criminal antecedents, assets, education — right to know under Art. 19(1)(a)
Lily Thomas v. Union of India 2013 Convicted MPs/MLAs disqualified from date of conviction — Section 8(4) RPA struck down
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan 1997 Sexual harassment at workplace violates Arts. 14, 19, 21; Vishaka Guidelines with force of law
Shayara Bano v. Union of India 2017 Triple talaq struck down as manifestly arbitrary under Art. 14
Dr. Farooq Abdullah v. Union of India 2023 Abrogation of Art. 370 and J&K's reorganisation upheld by 5-judge bench

Back to topic map ↑

17.2Administrative Law#

In brief

Case Year One-Line Importance Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal 1852 Pecuniary bias automatically disqualifies adjudicator — no proof of actual influence needed Cooper v.…

Case Year One-Line Importance
Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal 1852 Pecuniary bias automatically disqualifies adjudicator — no proof of actual influence needed
Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works 1863 Early recognition of audi alteram partem — hearing required even without statutory provision
R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy 1924 'Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done'
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation 1948 Wednesbury unreasonableness — decision so unreasonable no reasonable authority could make it
Ridge v. Baldwin 1964 Natural justice applies to decisions affecting rights, not just strictly judicial functions — landmark revival
Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan 1964 Error apparent on the face of the record as a distinct ground of certiorari defined
Anisminic v. Foreign Compensation Commission 1969 ANY error of law makes a decision a nullity — abolished distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India 1970 Natural justice applies to administrative functions too; rule against bias applies broadly
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A.P. SRTC 1959 Investigator cannot be adjudicator; departmental bias recognised
Bhagat Raja v. Union of India 1967 Quasi-judicial orders must be reasoned/speaking orders — duty to give reasons
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister (GCHQ) 1985 Lord Diplock's three grounds: Illegality, Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India 1981 Natural justice is flexible — content depends on context, statutory framework, consequences
Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India 1992 First clear recognition of Legitimate Expectation doctrine in India
Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation 1993 Legitimate Expectation gives procedural right only, NOT substantive right to expected benefit
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of UP 1979 Promissory estoppel against Government confirmed in India
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (First Judges Case) 1981 Executive primacy in judicial appointments
SC Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Second Judges Case) 1993 Collegium system established; CJI's opinion gets primacy
In re Special Reference (Third Judges Case) 1998 Collegium expanded to CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges
SC Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (NJAC Case) 2015 99th Amendment struck down; NJAC unconstitutional; judicial independence is basic structure
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India 1997 HC's power under Arts. 226/227 is basic structure; CAT decisions subject to HC review
Tata Cellular v. Union of India 1994 Judicial review of government contracts: courts apply illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety
Om Kumar v. Union of India 2001 Proportionality doctrine adopted in Indian admin law for review of administrative punishment
D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar 1987 Repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances without legislative approval is fraud on Constitution
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. IICB 2002 Instrumentality/agency test for 'State' under Art. 12 — functional test is the key
Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab 1955 India does not adopt strict separation of powers but has checks and balances
University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao 1964 Quo Warranto is a discretionary writ, not a writ of right

Back to topic map ↑

Test yourself on Landmark Case Laws: Year and Importance

Practise with free MCQs and answer keys, then return here to fix what you got wrong.

↑ Module 5: Quick-Reference Tables: Articles, Cases and Amendments · All 25 topics in Constitutional and Administrative Law · Unit overview and sample MCQs

Last updated: . Notes are a revision aid; check official UGC sources for any rule or scheme that changes over time. Spotted a mistake? Write to netlawverse@gmail.com.