Case Archive

State of Uttar Pradesh v Lalta Prasad Vaish

In a 8:1 majority, the Supreme Court overturned Sythentics and Chemicals (1990) which held that “intoxicating liquor” under Entry 8 of the State List referred only to potable liquor, taking it our of the scope of states’ powers

Property Owners Association v State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court unanimously held that Article 31C as upheld in Kesavananada Bharati (1973) remains in the Constitution after the decision in Minerva Mills (1980). The majority also held that not all privately owned property is a "material resource of the community" in an 8:1 majority.

Kamal Anant Khopkar v Union of India

The Supreme Court will decide if Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, discriminates against women.

Kaushal Kishor v State Of Uttar Pradesh

The Constitution Bench held that the Freedom of Speech of public officials cannot be restricted in favour of another persons fundamental rights. However, they held that the State has an obligation to protect the fundamental rights of citizen's even against non-state actors such as other private persons.

Bilkis Yakub Rasool v Union of India

The Supreme Court held that Gujarat government was the incorrect authority to grant remission to 11 men convicted of gangrape in the Bilkis Bano case.

Mineral Area Development Authority v Steel Authority of India

In a 8:1 majority, a nine-judge Constitution Bench held that state government's can impose tax on mines and minerals. It observed that "royalty" is distinct from tax.

Neeraj Dutta v State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

A Constitution Bench led by Justice Nazeer unanimously held that public officials can be convicted for bribery on the basis of circumstantial evidence if there is no direct evidence.

Sukhpal Singh Khaira v State of Punjab

The SC will decide if a new accused can be summoned after the trial has concluded and the Judgment has already been delivered.

Vivek Narayan Sharma v Union of India

The Supreme Court upheld the Union's 2016 demonetisation scheme in a 4:1 split. The majority held that the scheme was proportionate to the the Union's stated objectives and was implemented in a reasonable manner.

Pattali Makkal Katchi v Mayileruperumal

The Supreme Court held that Tamil Nadu's reservation for Vanniyars in education and employment within the Most Backward Classes category was unconstitutional. The Court observed that the reservation was not supported by empirical data on backwardness.