Landmark Supreme Court Cases — Set 11

Correct Answer: B. Employer must constitute a Complaints Committee to receive and adjudicate complaints

Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) directed every employer to constitute a Complaints Committee for receiving and adjudicating complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace, which must be headed by a woman and include at least half women members and at least one third-party NGO member to prevent employer bias. These Vishaka committees were the precursor to the Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) mandated under the POSH Act, 2013. The judgment also imposed obligations on employers to spread awareness, sensitize employees, and initiate criminal proceedings where the harassment also amounted to an offence under the IPC.

Correct Answer: B. Appointment of commissioners to investigate and report facts to the court

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) is a landmark case in the evolution of PIL procedure, in which the Supreme Court appointed commissioners to visit stone quarries in Haryana and submit detailed factual reports about the conditions of bonded labourers. This was significant because it meant the court did not rely solely on affidavits from government or petitioners but had its own fact-finding mechanism. Justice Bhagwati held that in PIL cases involving the poor and marginalized who cannot present evidence effectively, the court can adopt an activist approach to fact-finding. The commissioner mechanism has since become a standard feature of PIL adjudication.

Correct Answer: B. Exclusion of courts' jurisdiction to review the Speaker's decisions on disqualification

Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule provided that no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question about disqualification of a member of a House on grounds of defection, making the Speaker's decision absolutely final and immune from judicial review. The Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan (1992) struck down Paragraph 7 as unconstitutional, holding that the power of judicial review of constitutional provisions and the authority to adjudicate on fundamental rights cannot be taken away by ordinary constitutional amendment. The exclusion of judicial review violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution. After this, Speaker's decisions on anti-defection cases are subject to High Court and Supreme Court review.

Correct Answer: C. Economic privacy protecting financial transactions from all scrutiny

K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) identified multiple overlapping dimensions of privacy as a fundamental right: spatial privacy (inviolability of the home), bodily integrity (freedom from physical invasion), decisional autonomy (freedom to make personal choices about life and relationships), informational privacy (control over one's personal data), and reputational privacy. The court did not specifically recognize an absolute economic privacy protecting all financial transactions from any state scrutiny — in fact, the court held that state regulation of financial transactions for legitimate purposes like anti-money laundering is constitutionally permissible. The judgment instead balanced privacy with other constitutional values.

Correct Answer: C. Justice H.R. Khanna

Justice H.R. Khanna wrote the sole dissent in ADM Jabalpur v Shukla (1976), holding that the right to life and liberty cannot be suspended even during Emergency and that Habeas Corpus petitions must remain maintainable. As the next senior judge, Justice Khanna was constitutionally entitled to become the Chief Justice of India. However, the Indira Gandhi government superseded him and appointed the next-senior judge as CJI. Justice Khanna resigned from the Supreme Court in protest. His dissent is now universally regarded as one of the finest moments in Indian judicial history, and he is considered a judicial hero who sacrificed his career for constitutional principles.

Correct Answer: B. State must demonstrate backwardness, inadequate representation, and no adverse effect on administrative efficiency

M. Nagraj v Union of India (2006) upheld the constitutional validity of the 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Constitutional Amendments which provided for reservations in promotions for SC/ST government employees with consequential seniority. The 5-judge constitutional bench held that States are not obligated to provide reservation in promotions but if they choose to do so, they must collect quantifiable data to show (i) the backwardness of the class, (ii) the inadequacy of representation in public employment, and (iii) that efficiency in administration will not suffer. This three-fold test has been the subject of subsequent litigation including Jarnail Singh v Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018).

Correct Answer: B. Vague overbroad laws discourage citizens from exercising their constitutional rights for fear of prosecution

Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) applied the 'chilling effect' doctrine — borrowed from American constitutional jurisprudence — to hold that Section 66A IT Act was unconstitutional because its vague and overbroad language would deter citizens from expressing legitimate opinions online for fear of criminal prosecution. A law that is so uncertain that citizens cannot know in advance whether their speech is protected or criminal causes a 'chilling effect' on free expression, leading to self-censorship even for constitutionally protected speech. The court held that laws restricting fundamental rights must be clear and narrowly defined so citizens can freely exercise their rights without fear.

Correct Answer: B. 2G Spectrum case (Centre for PIL v Union of India, 2012)

Manohar Lal Sharma v Principal Secretary (Coal Allocation Scam, 2014) explicitly applied and extended the principles laid down in Centre for PIL v Union of India (2G Spectrum case, 2012) relating to the distribution of natural resources. The 2G case had held that natural resources are a public trust and must be distributed through a competitive, transparent process that maximizes public benefit. The Coal Allocation case applied this principle to coal blocks and quashed all arbitrarily allocated blocks. Together, the 2G and Coal Allocation cases created a comprehensive jurisprudence on the doctrine of natural resources as public trust in India.

Correct Answer: A. Backwardness need not be separately established for SC/ST communities in promotion reservations

Jarnail Singh v Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) was decided by a 5-judge constitutional bench that partially modified M. Nagraj (2006) by holding that States need not separately collect data to demonstrate the 'backwardness' of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of reservation in promotions. The court reasoned that SC/ST communities' backwardness is established by their very inclusion in the Presidential lists and need not be re-proven each time reservation in promotions is provided. However, the court maintained the requirements to demonstrate inadequate representation and absence of adverse effect on administrative efficiency. The court also refused to apply the 'creamy layer' principle to SC/ST promotions.

Correct Answer: B. Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially when bail has been wrongly refused

Arnab Ranjan Goswami v Union of India (2020) saw the Supreme Court grant bail to TV journalist Arnab Goswami who had been arrested by Maharashtra Police in connection with a 2018 abetment of suicide case. The court made a strong constitutional observation that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that courts at every level have a duty to protect individual liberty. The court held that constitutional courts must be willing to grant bail when persons are being deprived of liberty in a casual and mechanical manner. The judgment also criticized the Bombay High Court for passing brief and non-speaking orders on the bail application.