Landmark Supreme Court Cases — Set 14

Correct Answer: B. The constitutionality of its own amendments under Article 368

Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980) struck down Section 55 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment which had added a new Clause 4 to Article 368 declaring that no constitutional amendment shall be questioned in any court on any ground. The court held that Parliament cannot use its amending power to exclude judicial review of its own amendments, as this would make Parliament the sole and final judge of the constitutionality of its own actions. Unlimited power to amend, including the power to make one's amendments unchallengeable, would destroy the constitutional supremacy that is itself a part of the Basic Structure. Judicial review of constitutional amendments is therefore an inviolable feature of the Constitution.

Correct Answer: B. Chief Justice of India and 4 senior-most judges

Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, known as the Third Judges case, was a presidential reference under Article 143 seeking clarification on the collegium system established in the Second Judges case (1993). The court clarified that the collegium for appointment and transfer of Supreme Court judges consists of the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court (not just two as some had interpreted the Second Judges case). The court also clarified that if two members of the collegium are opposed to a particular appointment, the Chief Justice should not forward the recommendation to the government, making the collegium decision essentially by consensus.

Correct Answer: B. Corruption charges can be brought only with the permission of the Chief Justice of India

K. Veeraswami v Union of India (1991) is an important judgment addressing criminal accountability of judges. The Supreme Court held that a judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court is not immune from prosecution for criminal offences, including corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, to protect the independence of the judiciary, the court held that before any investigation or prosecution of a judge for corruption, prior sanction of the Chief Justice of India must be obtained. This requirement was intended to prevent harassment of judges but has been criticized for creating a shield for judicial corruption, as the CJI's sanction is rarely given.

Correct Answer: B. Death penalty should be the exception, and social, economic circumstances of the accused are relevant

Rajendra Prasad v State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) was decided by a 3-judge bench that included Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, who wrote a landmark opinion holding that the death penalty should be imposed only in exceptional cases and that the social, economic, and cultural circumstances of the accused are relevant mitigating factors. Justice Krishna Iyer's approach was more abolitionist than the subsequent Bachan Singh judgment (1980), which settled the 'rarest of rare' doctrine. Bachan Singh effectively restricted the broader social justice approach of Rajendra Prasad by requiring case-specific aggravating factors rather than general social conditions as grounds for or against death penalty.

Correct Answer: B. Platforms are not liable for third-party content unless they have actual knowledge or a court order requiring removal

Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) also addressed Section 79 of the IT Act, which provides a 'safe harbour' to internet intermediaries (platforms) from liability for third-party content. The court read down Section 79(3)(b) to mean that an intermediary loses its safe harbour protection only when it fails to act upon a court order or government order passed through proper judicial process — not on the mere receipt of a takedown demand from any private party or government official. This reading protected online platforms from having to take down content upon informal demands and required that content removal be backed by court orders, protecting free expression online.

Correct Answer: A. Indra Sawhney dealt with initial appointments while Nagaraj dealt with promotions requiring additional constitutional amendments

M. Nagaraj v Union of India (2006) was distinguished from Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992) on the basis that Indra Sawhney had held that Article 16(4) does not cover promotion and that reservation in promotions required a specific constitutional amendment. After the 77th Constitutional Amendment inserted Article 16(4A) specifically enabling promotion reservations for SC/ST in 1995, Nagaraj challenged this amendment. The court in Nagaraj upheld the constitutional amendments enabling promotion reservations but imposed additional conditions (backwardness, inadequacy of representation, efficiency) that were distinct from and additional to the framework in Indra Sawhney for initial appointment reservations.

Correct Answer: B. Access to justice including free legal aid as a fundamental right

Anita Kushwaha v Pushap Sudan (2016) recognized access to justice as a component of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the right to access justice encompasses the right to approach courts and tribunals, the right to reasonably speedy trial, the right to free legal aid for those who cannot afford it, and the right to the state providing a fair and impartial adjudicatory process. The court also recognized that physical inaccessibility of courts due to lack of appropriate courts or long distances are also violations of this right, emphasizing that justice must be accessible to all citizens regardless of economic status or geographic location.

Correct Answer: B. Sections 499 and 500 IPC on criminal defamation

Subramanian Swamy v Union of India (2016) upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalize defamation, rejecting the challenge that criminal defamation violates freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The Supreme Court held that reputation is a component of Article 21's right to life and dignity, and criminal defamation is a reasonable restriction on free speech under Article 19(2). The court rejected the argument that civil defamation is an adequate remedy and that criminal defamation creates a chilling effect on the press. The judgment has been widely criticized by media and civil liberties groups as a tool for suppressing legitimate criticism.

Correct Answer: B. Article 21 — right to life includes right to health and emergency medical care

Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v State of West Bengal (1996) arose from the case of a poor agricultural labourer who sustained serious head injuries but was refused emergency treatment at multiple government hospitals because of lack of facilities or beds. The Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to health and the right to receive emergency medical care, and that the failure of government hospitals to provide emergency treatment is a constitutional violation. The court issued directions to strengthen emergency medical infrastructure and directed state governments to ensure emergency medical care is available to all citizens regardless of their ability to pay.

Correct Answer: B. Medical services including both government and private hospitals

Indian Medical Association v V.P. Shantha (1995) is the landmark Supreme Court judgment that held that medical services, whether provided by private hospitals or government hospitals (when fees are charged), fall within the definition of 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This meant that patients who suffer from medical negligence can file complaints before consumer forums seeking compensation, in addition to their rights under tort law. The judgment democratized access to justice for victims of medical negligence by providing the cheaper and faster consumer forum route. It was later modified by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which clarified the liability framework.