Landmark Supreme Court Cases — Set 3

Correct Answer: C. 9-judge bench

K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India (2017), known as the Privacy judgment, was decided by a 9-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, the largest bench constituted after many decades. All nine judges unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under the Indian Constitution, primarily under Article 21. The case arose out of a challenge to the Aadhaar scheme and overruled the earlier judgments in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) which had denied privacy as a fundamental right.

Correct Answer: C. Article 21

K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) held that the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21, as well as being implicit in the other freedoms guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. The judgment recognized multiple dimensions of privacy including bodily integrity, informational privacy, decisional autonomy, and relational privacy. It established that the state can restrict privacy only through law that is necessary, proportionate, and has a legitimate aim.

Correct Answer: B. M.P. Sharma 1954 and Kharak Singh 1962

K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) expressly overruled M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra (1954) decided by an 8-judge bench, and Kharak Singh v State of UP (1962) decided by a 6-judge bench, both of which had held that there is no fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution. The Puttaswamy judgment noted that these earlier cases had adopted an unnecessarily narrow reading of fundamental rights and failed to appreciate the holistic nature of the rights guaranteed in Part III.

Correct Answer: B. Section 377 — unnatural offences

Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) was decided by a 5-judge constitutional bench that unanimously read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to decriminalize consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex. The court overruled Suresh Kumar Koushal (2013), which had reversed the Delhi High Court's progressive Naz Foundation judgment. The bench held that Section 377 as applied to consenting adults violated Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21, and that sexual orientation is an innate aspect of identity protected as a fundamental right.

Correct Answer: B. Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation 2013

Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) overruled the Supreme Court's own 2-judge bench judgment in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation (2013), which had reinstated Section 377 by reversing the Delhi High Court's Naz Foundation judgment. The Johar court found the Koushal judgment to be per incuriam (incorrect in law) as it had failed to appreciate the constitutional rights of LGBT persons. The overruling also vindicated the Delhi High Court's approach of treating LGBT rights as fundamental rights.

Correct Answer: C. Triple Talaq (instant divorce)

Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017) was decided by a 5-judge constitutional bench that struck down the practice of instant Triple Talaq (talaq-e-biddat) among Muslims by a 3:2 majority. The majority held that the practice is manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. This judgment led to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which made the practice of instant triple talaq a criminal offence.

Correct Answer: C. 3:2

Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017) was decided by a 3:2 majority of the 5-judge constitutional bench. Justices Rohinton Nariman and U.U. Lalit struck down triple talaq as unconstitutional, Justice Kurian Joseph concurred on a different ground (that it was un-Islamic), while Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Abdul Nazeer dissented, holding that the practice was protected personal law not subject to constitutional challenge. The 3:2 split reflected deep divisions on the intersection of personal law and constitutional rights.

Correct Answer: B. Emergency period 1975-77

ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla (1976) is the most controversial judgment in Indian constitutional history, decided during the National Emergency proclaimed by Indira Gandhi in 1975. The question before the Supreme Court was whether Habeas Corpus petitions (challenging illegal detention) remain maintainable during a National Emergency when fundamental rights are suspended. A 4:1 majority held that no person has locus standi to move any court to challenge detention during Emergency, effectively suspending the rule of law.

Correct Answer: B. Justice H.R. Khanna

Justice H.R. Khanna wrote the sole and heroic dissent in ADM Jabalpur v Shukla (1976), holding that even during a National Emergency, the state cannot deprive a person of life or liberty without the authority of law and that Habeas Corpus petitions must remain maintainable. This dissent is widely regarded as one of the finest hours of Indian judicial history. Justice Khanna was superseded for the position of Chief Justice of India as a consequence of his dissent, and he resigned in protest.

Correct Answer: B. K.S. Puttaswamy 2017

K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017), the Privacy judgment, expressly acknowledged that ADM Jabalpur v Shukla (1976) was incorrectly decided and that Justice Khanna's dissent reflected the correct constitutional position. The Puttaswamy bench noted that ADM Jabalpur wrongly held that life and liberty exist only to the extent granted by the Constitution, whereas in reality they are natural rights existing independent of and prior to the Constitution. This formal overruling finally vindicated Justice Khanna's legendary dissent.