Landmark Supreme Court Cases — Set 16

Correct Answer: B. Bar dancing ban — prohibition on dance performances in eating houses and bars

Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association v State of Maharashtra (2019) struck down the Maharashtra government's prohibition on bar dancing (dance performances by women in eating houses and bars) as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the prohibition violated the right to livelihood of the women dancers under Article 21 and was an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on an occupation under Article 19(1)(g). The court had previously struck down an earlier version of the ban in 2006 in State of Maharashtra v Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association, and this 2019 judgment struck down the revised version enacted in 2014, reaffirming the right of bar dancers to earn a living through their profession.

Correct Answer: B. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Jolly George Varghese v Bank of Cochin (1980) is a landmark case in which Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer held that section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) which allows arrest and detention of judgment debtors must be read consistently with Article 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a party, which prohibits imprisonment merely on the ground of inability to fulfill a contractual obligation. The court held that imprisonment of a debtor who is genuinely unable to pay (not wilfully refusing) would violate the ICCPR. This case was a pioneer in using international human rights treaties as an interpretive aid in domestic constitutional law.

Correct Answer: B. Hanging as a method of execution is not cruel or unusual punishment under Article 21

Suresh v Union of India (2016) challenged the constitutionality of hanging as the method of execution of the death sentence in India, arguing that it constitutes torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment violating Article 21. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of execution by hanging under the Prison Manual, holding that hanging as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code is not violative of Article 21 as it is meant to cause instantaneous death. The court declined to replace hanging with lethal injection, holding that the choice of execution method is a legislative decision. This case built on the earlier Deena v Union of India (1983) which had already upheld hanging.

Correct Answer: B. The state is vicariously liable for torts committed by its servants acting in the course of employment

State of Rajasthan v Vidhyawati (1962) is the landmark judgment establishing the state's vicarious liability in tort under Indian law. The Supreme Court held that the state is liable to pay compensation for the tort committed by its employee (a government driver who negligently caused a fatal accident) in the same way as a private employer is liable for the torts of its servants. The court rejected the colonial-era immunity of the Crown from suit and held that in a democratic republic, the state cannot claim special immunity from tortious liability. This judgment helped develop the law of state liability though subsequent cases have grappled with distinguishing sovereign functions from non-sovereign functions.

Correct Answer: B. Cognizable offences — police cannot refuse to register FIR or conduct preliminary inquiry before registration

Lalita Kumari v Government of UP (2013) was decided by a 5-judge constitutional bench that held that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC when information reveals the commission of a cognizable offence. The police cannot refuse to register an FIR and cannot conduct a 'preliminary inquiry' before registration in cases involving cognizable offences. However, the court carved out an exception allowing preliminary inquiry in specific categories like matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, and corruption cases — but not in cases of serious crimes like murder, rape, and dacoity. The judgment aimed to prevent police from sitting on complaints and not registering FIRs, which was a widespread problem.

Correct Answer: B. Punjab and Delhi hotels act prohibition on employing women in premises with liquor licenses

Anuj Garg v Hotel Association of India (2008) struck down Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act which prohibited women from being employed in premises where liquor is served or consumed. The Supreme Court held that the provision constituted unconstitutional gender discrimination under Articles 14, 15, and 19(1)(g), as it was based on paternalistic and stereotypical assumptions about women needing protection rather than on genuine protective concerns. The court held that laws which restrict women's employment opportunities in the name of protection, without addressing the actual causes of workplace safety problems, cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. Protective discrimination must genuinely protect, not exclude.

Correct Answer: B. Section 69A — power to block websites for national security and public order

Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) upheld Section 69A of the IT Act which gives the government power to block websites in the interest of national security, sovereignty, public order, or to prevent incitement to offences. However, the court upheld it with the important caveat that blocking orders must be reasoned and reviewed by a designated committee, and that website owners must be given an opportunity to be heard before blocking. The court distinguished Section 69A from the struck-down Section 66A by noting that Section 69A has procedural safeguards and specific grounds for blocking, whereas Section 66A's criminalization was open-ended and vague. Section 69A has since been used to block thousands of websites in India.

Correct Answer: B. Right to Information Act, 2005 and the composition of information commissions

Union of India v Namit Sharma (review) (2013) dealt with the Right to Information Act, 2005 and specifically the qualifications required for members of the Central and State Information Commissions which adjudicate RTI appeals and complaints. The Supreme Court, in review, substantially modified its earlier judgment in Namit Sharma (2013) which had held that only persons with legal qualifications could serve on the commissions. The review judgment recognized that information commissioners need not all be lawyers as RTI cases do not always require legal expertise, but maintained that some commissioners should have legal background. This case defined the institutional design of information commissions under the RTI Act.

Correct Answer: B. It held that a minuscule minority cannot invoke fundamental rights, contradicting the very purpose of Part III

Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation (2013) was widely criticized by constitutional scholars and eventually overruled in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) primarily because its reasoning that LGBT persons form 'a minuscule fraction of the population' and therefore their fundamental rights challenge should fail, is constitutionally untenable. The very purpose of Part III fundamental rights is to protect individuals and minorities — even very small minorities — from majoritarian legislation and the tyranny of numbers. The Johar court expressly held that constitutional rights cannot be denied to any person on the ground that they belong to a minority, however small, as that would render the fundamental rights chapter meaningless.

Correct Answer: B. Hyderabad state officials including Razakars for crimes committed during the Police Action

Syed Qasim Razvi v State of Hyderabad (1953) dealt with the criminal prosecution of officials of the Nizam's state, including leaders of the Razakars (a paramilitary force that had committed atrocities against Hindus and anti-merger Muslims), for crimes committed before and during the Police Action (Operation Polo) that led to Hyderabad's integration into India in 1948. The Supreme Court addressed whether the new government could prosecute officials of the former state. This case was significant in the context of transitional justice in post-independence India and dealt with complex issues of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and accountability for pre-merger atrocities.