Landmark Supreme Court Cases — Set 18

Correct Answer: B. CEDAW (Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) and fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21

Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) was decided in the absence of any specific domestic legislation on sexual harassment of women at the workplace. The Supreme Court filled this legal vacuum by invoking CEDAW — the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women — which India had ratified, along with fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. The court held that in the absence of domestic law, international conventions that are consistent with constitutional rights can be used to fill legislative gaps. The Vishaka guidelines were issued as a temporary measure with binding force of law until Parliament enacted specific legislation, which it did through the POSH Act, 2013.

Correct Answer: B. The American 'due process of law' concept

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) effectively imported the American concept of 'due process of law' into Article 21, even though the Constitution's framers had deliberately replaced 'due process of law' with 'procedure established by law'. The court held that the procedure must be 'right, just and fair' — not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive — which is substantively equivalent to the American due process standard. This was a creative exercise of judicial interpretation that transformed Article 21 from a formal procedural guarantee (any enacted procedure suffices) into a substantive guarantee of fair procedure, significantly expanding the protection available to persons whose life or liberty is threatened by state action.

Correct Answer: B. J. Jayalalithaa for conviction in a disproportionate assets case

B.R. Kapur v State of Tamil Nadu (2001) saw the Supreme Court hold that J. Jayalalithaa, who had been convicted in the disproportionate assets case and sentenced to imprisonment, was disqualified from being appointed or continuing as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu under Article 164 read with Article 191 and the Representation of People Act. The court held that a person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment cannot be appointed as a Minister, including the Chief Minister, as this would make a mockery of the constitutional requirements of eligibility for public office. Jayalalithaa had been appointed as CM despite her conviction, and the court ordered her removal.

Correct Answer: B. Indirect taxes like excise duty and customs duty paid under an illegal assessment

Mafatlal Industries v Union of India (1997) was a 9-judge constitutional bench judgment that addressed the right to claim refund of excise duty and customs duty paid under assessments that were later found to be illegal or under laws declared unconstitutional. The court held that while there is a prima facie right to recover taxes paid without legal authority (based on Article 265 which says no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law), this right is subject to the statutory framework of the Central Excise Act including the unjust enrichment bar — if the tax has been passed on to consumers, the manufacturer cannot claim refund as they have not actually suffered the loss. This case established the doctrine of unjust enrichment in indirect tax refund cases.

Correct Answer: B. Section 436A CrPC — mandatory bail for undertrials who have served half their maximum sentence

Hussain v Union of India (2017) concerned the systematic non-implementation of Section 436A of the CrPC which mandates that an undertrial prisoner who has undergone detention for half the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence must be released on bail. The Supreme Court noted that most undertrials in India were unaware of this right and legal aid machinery was not effectively informing them. The court issued directions to District Legal Services Authorities and prison authorities to identify all undertrials eligible under Section 436A and initiate bail proceedings on their behalf. The case highlighted how procedural rights of prisoners remain paper rights without effective implementation machinery.

Correct Answer: B. Conversion of mid-day meal scheme from dry rations to cooked meals in all primary schools

People's Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2001 onwards), the Right to Food case, issued several landmark interim orders through years of litigation. One of the most transformative was the 2001 order directing all states to convert the mid-day meal scheme from dry rations (where uncooked grain was distributed to students to take home) to cooked meals served in schools. This order dramatically improved school attendance, reduced dropout rates (especially for girls), and improved nutrition levels of children. The Supreme Court's continuing supervision of the mid-day meal scheme through this PIL is considered a major success story of judicial enforcement of economic rights.

Correct Answer: B. Right to celebrate festivals vs right to clean air — permitted only green certified firecrackers with time limits during Diwali

Arjun Gopal v Union of India (2018) arose from the severe air pollution in Delhi during and after Diwali due to firecrackers. The Supreme Court balanced the right to celebrate festivals (including through firecrackers) against the right to clean air under Article 21. The court permitted only 'green' certified firecrackers (with lower emission of particulate matter and chemicals) to be sold and burst, and imposed a timing restriction of two hours during festivals. The court banned online sale of firecrackers and directed states to ensure compliance. This case is a significant example of the court balancing cultural/religious practices against environmental and health rights.

Correct Answer: B. Whether the concept of carry forward of unfilled reserved vacancies violates the 50% ceiling

Indra Sawhney v Union of India (II) (2000) addressed the question of whether the 'carry forward rule' — whereby unfilled reserved vacancies in one year can be carried forward to subsequent years — violates the 50% ceiling on reservations established in Indra Sawhney I (1992). The Supreme Court held that while the carry forward rule itself is valid, the 50% ceiling applies to the total number of vacancies in a particular recruitment year including carry-forward vacancies. Backlog vacancies carried forward can be filled but the total reservation in any given year's recruitment cannot exceed 50%, preventing indefinite accumulation of unfilled reserved positions. This clarification was important for maintaining the balance between reservations and merit-based selection.

Correct Answer: B. Oxygen supply, essential medicines, and vaccination policy — including questioning the differential pricing policy

In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic (2021) was a suo motu case taken up by the Supreme Court during the devastating second wave of COVID-19 in India in April-May 2021. The court addressed the critical shortage of medical oxygen, essential medicines like Remdesivir, and the vaccination policy. Most significantly, the court questioned the differential pricing policy under which states and private hospitals were being charged different prices for vaccines by manufacturers — with states paying more than the Centre. The court's intervention led to the government revising the vaccination policy to provide free vaccines through the Centre to all adults, replacing the differentiated state-level procurement policy.

Correct Answer: B. Even after dissolution of J&K Constituent Assembly, Article 370 continued and was not automatically permanent

In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023), the Supreme Court addressed a key constitutional argument that Article 370 had become permanent after the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly in 1956, since the article required the J&K Constituent Assembly's concurrence for its modification. The court held that Article 370 was a transitional provision and not a permanent feature — the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly did not freeze Article 370 in its existing form or make it unamendable forever. The court held that the President retained the power to modify Article 370 even after the Constituent Assembly's dissolution, particularly during President's Rule, though there are scholarly debates about whether this interpretation is constitutionally sound.