Landmark Supreme Court Cases — Set 12

Correct Answer: B. State cannot insist on merit-based admissions in minority unaided institutions and cannot impose reservations

P.A. Inamdar v State of Maharashtra (2005) was a 7-judge constitutional bench judgment that clarified and modified aspects of TMA Pai Foundation (2002) regarding the rights of minority unaided educational institutions. The court held that the state cannot impose its reservation policy on minority unaided professional colleges and cannot insist on merit-based admission procedures that override the institution's own admission criteria. This judgment significantly expanded the autonomy of minority educational institutions under Article 30, but it was subsequently partially nullified by the 93rd Constitutional Amendment inserting Article 15(5) which made OBC/SC/ST reservation applicable even in private aided and unaided institutions.

Correct Answer: B. Curative petitions in death penalty cases must be heard by a bench of at least 5 judges in open court

Mohd. Arif v Supreme Court of India (2014) established a critical procedural safeguard for death penalty cases. The Supreme Court held that review petitions filed by death row convicts should be heard in open court by a bench of at least three judges, overruling the earlier practice of deciding review petitions by circulation (without oral hearing). The court subsequently extended this further to require curative petitions in death penalty cases to be heard orally. This was significant because many death row convicts had their review petitions dismissed without even a hearing, and the judgment ensured at minimum a fair chance of making oral arguments even at the review stage.

Correct Answer: B. Anti-Sikh riots of 1984 in Delhi

Sajjan Kumar v Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) — the final conviction happened in 2018 — is the landmark case in which a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case was finally brought to conclusion when the Delhi High Court convicted former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar to life imprisonment for his role in the violence. The Supreme Court upheld this conviction. The case highlighted the long struggle for justice by 1984 riot victims and raised important questions about the nexus between political power and communal violence, delayed trials, and witness protection. It remains one of the few cases where a senior politician was held criminally accountable for communal riots.

Correct Answer: B. Mob lynching and vigilante cow protection violence

Tehseen Poonawalla v Union of India (2018) was filed in response to the rising incidents of mob lynching, often carried out in the name of cow protection, across India. The Supreme Court issued comprehensive preventive, remedial, and punitive directions to the states to prevent mob lynching. These included directions to designate nodal officers in each district, register FIRs promptly against lynching perpetrators, sensitize police and citizens, fast-track trials, and provide compensation to victims. The court held that mob violence is anathema to constitutional values and the rule of law, and the state has a positive duty to protect its citizens from mob violence.

Correct Answer: B. Whether the blockade of protest sites on Delhi's borders by police was legal

Rakesh Vaishnav v Union of India (2021) arose from the large-scale protests by farmers against the three contentious farm laws passed in 2020. The Supreme Court examined the legality of the state-imposed barricades blocking protesting farmers from entering Delhi at Singhu and Tikri borders. The court held that the right to protest peacefully is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), and the government cannot indefinitely block access to public roads without justification. However, the court also appointed a committee to examine the farm laws and recommended negotiations, and the laws were eventually repealed without the court striking them down.

Correct Answer: C. 3:2 majority

Vivek Narayan Sharma v Union of India (2023) was decided by a 5-judge constitutional bench that upheld the constitutionality of the government's demonetization of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 currency notes in November 2016 by a 4:1 majority (with the majority writing separate concurring opinions). Justice B.V. Nagarathna wrote a powerful lone dissent holding that the notification demonetizing currency notes was issued through an unconstitutional procedure — the Reserve Bank of India had not independently recommended demonetization but was directed to do so by the government, reversing the statutory process under the RBI Act. The majority however held the decision-making process was valid.

Correct Answer: C. Both memorandum of procedure and transparency

Following the NJAC judgment (2015), the Supreme Court took up the issue of reforming the collegium system even while maintaining it. In subsequent proceedings in 2016, the court addressed two main issues: the need for a Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) governing judicial appointments by the collegium, and transparency in collegium decisions including the publication of resolutions and reasons. The court held that the collegium should publish the names of recommended judges and the reasons for their recommendation or non-recommendation. This led to some improvements in collegium transparency, though critics argue the reforms were insufficient.

Correct Answer: C. Both Gian Kaur (1996) and Aruna Shanbaug (2011)

Common Cause v Union of India (2018) built upon two important earlier judgments. Gian Kaur v State of Punjab (1996) had held that the right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die, but had hinted that the right to die with dignity may be protected. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v Union of India (2011) had permitted passive euthanasia for PVS patients through High Court supervision. Common Cause (2018) synthesized both judgments and went further, holding that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21, legalizing passive euthanasia under a simplified process and recognizing advance medical directives (living wills) as legally binding.

Correct Answer: B. Article 14 — right to equality before law and protection against arbitrariness

Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017) struck down instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) primarily on the ground that it is manifestly arbitrary and therefore violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Justices Nariman and Lalit held that the practice allows a Muslim husband to dissolve the marriage capriciously and whimsically, without any application of mind, and that such an unreasonable practice cannot survive the equality guarantee of Article 14. Justice Kurian Joseph, who formed the third judge in the majority, held on a different ground that since triple talaq is not an essential religious practice in Islam, it is not protected under Article 25.

Correct Answer: B. Mechanical and casual arrest in cases punishable with less than 7 years imprisonment

Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2014) is a landmark judgment in which the Supreme Court expressed serious concern about the widespread practice of mechanical arrests by police in cases triable by magistrates (those carrying less than 7 years imprisonment), including cases under Section 498A IPC (cruelty to married women). The court issued guidelines requiring police officers to apply their mind about the necessity of arrest in each case, considering factors under Section 41 CrPC, and to complete a checklist before making an arrest. Magistrates were directed not to authorize detention mechanically but to scrutinize police reasons for seeking remand. The judgment was intended to prevent the use of arrest as an instrument of harassment.