Landmark Supreme Court Cases — Set 10

Correct Answer: B. Whether Parliament's unlimited amending power under 24th and 25th amendments could destroy fundamental rights

Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) was precipitated by the 24th and 25th Constitutional Amendments passed during Indira Gandhi's tenure, which had overturned the Golaknath judgment and reasserted Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights. The question was whether Parliament's amending power under Article 368 was unlimited or whether it had implied limitations. Swami Kesavananda Bharati, a religious head from Kerala, challenged state land reforms that threatened his mutt's property, providing the vehicle for this constitutional showdown. The court settled once and for all that amending power, though wide, cannot destroy the Constitution's Basic Structure.

Correct Answer: B. The golden triangle test — the law must satisfy Articles 14, 19, and 21 simultaneously

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) established the 'golden triangle' test which requires that any law affecting personal liberty under Article 21 must also satisfy the requirements of Articles 14 (right to equality — it must not be arbitrary) and 19 (right to various freedoms — it must be reasonable and not excessive). This interconnected reading of the three articles means that no single article can be read in isolation when fundamental liberties are at stake. The Maneka Gandhi test fundamentally transformed constitutional adjudication in India and made the Supreme Court a more active protector of individual liberty against state action.

Correct Answer: B. Social and educational reservations as Socially and Educationally Backward Classes

NALSA v Union of India (2014) not only recognized transgender persons as a 'third gender' but also directed the Central and State governments to treat transgender persons as socially and educationally backward classes (OBCs) for the purpose of providing reservations in educational institutions and public appointments. The court also directed the government to formulate welfare schemes for transgender persons covering healthcare, education, social security, and protection from violence and discrimination. The judgment led to the eventual enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, though activists noted that the Act fell short of the judgment's vision.

Correct Answer: B. Article 15 — prohibition of discrimination on grounds including 'sex' read broadly

Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) held that the word 'sex' in Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, must be interpreted broadly to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The court held that excluding LGBT persons from constitutional protection would render Article 15 meaningless for a significant section of society. The five-judge bench also held that Section 377 IPC, as applied to consensual same-sex relations between adults, violated Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 19 (freedom of expression and identity), and 21 (dignity and privacy).

Correct Answer: B. The incitement test — speech must incite imminent lawless action, not merely tend to cause disorder

Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) drew a crucial distinction between 'discussion', 'advocacy', and 'incitement' in the context of online speech. The court held that Section 66A criminalized speech that went far beyond 'incitement' — the only constitutionally permissible ground for restricting speech to protect public order under Article 19(2). The court held that merely 'offensive' or 'menacing' speech that does not incite imminent unlawful action cannot be criminalized, as this would allow the government to suppress legitimate dissent, satire, and criticism. The judgment borrowed from the American 'Brandenburg test' to set a high threshold for restricting political speech online.

Correct Answer: B. Creamy layer exclusion applies to OBCs but NOT to SC/ST communities

Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992) held that the 'creamy layer' concept — excluding the more affluent members of backward communities from reservation benefits — applies to Other Backward Classes but expressly does not apply to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The court reasoned that the backwardness of SCs and STs is rooted in historical caste-based discrimination and untouchability which cannot be eradicated merely by economic advancement of some members, unlike OBC backwardness which is primarily social and can be overcome. However, subsequent cases have debated whether sub-classification within SC/ST reservations should be permitted.

Correct Answer: B. All the given options

The floor test principle from S.R. Bommai v Union of India (1994) has been applied in several post-2000 political crises. In Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court ordered a floor test in 2016 when the Harish Rawat government faced President's Rule. In Arunachal Pradesh (2016), the Supreme Court reinstated a dismissed government. In the Maharashtra political crisis of 2019, the court directed a floor test within 24 hours when three parties formed a government. These repeated applications demonstrate how Bommai fundamentally changed the relationship between the Centre and the states and made the floor test the primary test of governmental majority.

Correct Answer: B. Conversion of all public transport buses and autorickshaws to CNG (Compressed Natural Gas)

MC Mehta v Union of India (the Delhi Vehicular Pollution case, decided in multiple orders from 1998-2002) led to one of the most significant environmental policy changes in Indian history. The Supreme Court directed that all buses of Delhi Transport Corporation, private stage carriages, and three-wheelers (autorickshaws) must be converted to run on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) by a specified date. This order was implemented despite significant resistance from various quarters and led to a dramatic improvement in Delhi's air quality in the early 2000s. The case is a landmark example of judicial enforcement of environmental protection through continuing mandamus.

Correct Answer: B. A government instruction requiring CBI to seek permission before investigating senior officials

Vineet Narain v Union of India (1998) challenged the 'single directive' — a circular issued by the Department of Personnel requiring the CBI to obtain prior sanction from the concerned department before investigating officers of the rank of Joint Secretary and above in Central Government. The Supreme Court struck down this single directive as an unconstitutional shield for senior bureaucrats from investigation, holding that no one is above the law and the CBI must be free to investigate all persons regardless of their rank. The case significantly enhanced the CBI's operational independence and established the principle of equality before the law even for senior government officials.

Correct Answer: B. Prior notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard

Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) held that while pavement dwellers do not have an absolute right to a particular place, the government cannot evict them without following fair procedure. The court held that the right to livelihood under Article 21 requires that before eviction, the government must give notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing to affected persons. The court also directed that evictions should not be carried out during monsoon season or at night. This procedural protection was significant in recognizing the humanity of the urban poor even when denying them an absolute right to occupy public spaces.