Landmark Supreme Court Cases — Set 5

Correct Answer: B. From the date of conviction itself

Lily Thomas v Union of India (2013) struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allowed convicted MPs and MLAs to continue in their seats for 3 months and further during the pendency of appeal. The Supreme Court held that the protection given to sitting legislators under Section 8(4) is unconstitutional as it creates an impermissible distinction between sitting legislators and ordinary citizens. Now, upon conviction and sentence of two or more years imprisonment, a legislator is disqualified with immediate effect from the date of conviction.

Correct Answer: B. Right to die with dignity including passive euthanasia and living will

Common Cause v Union of India (2018) was decided by a 5-judge constitutional bench that held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21. The court upheld the validity of 'passive euthanasia' (withdrawal of life support from terminally ill patients in persistent vegetative state) and gave legal recognition to 'advance medical directives' or 'living wills' — documents by which a person can specify their wishes regarding medical treatment when they become incapacitated. This built on the earlier Aruna Shanbaug (2011) judgment.

Correct Answer: B. Right of divorced Muslim women to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC

Mohd. Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum (1985) was the landmark case in which the Supreme Court held that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which applies to all women regardless of religion. Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud held that Section 125 CrPC is a secular provision that overrides personal law and a divorced woman who is unable to maintain herself is entitled to maintenance beyond the iddat period. This judgment led to significant political controversy and was subsequently nullified by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

Correct Answer: B. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986

The Rajiv Gandhi government, facing pressure from Muslim clergy and orthodox sections, enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 to overturn the Supreme Court's Shah Bano judgment. This Act restricted Muslim divorced women's right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC to only the iddat period and placed the primary obligation on her relatives and the Waqf Board after iddat. The Act was itself challenged in Danial Latifi v Union of India (2001), where the Supreme Court upheld it by reading it broadly to provide for reasonable and fair maintenance.

Correct Answer: B. Christian women's right to equal inheritance under the Indian Succession Act

Mary Roy v State of Kerala (1986) was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court held that the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1916 (which gave daughters only a fraction of inheritance compared to sons) was superseded by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 upon the integration of Travancore into India. This meant Christian women in Kerala (and all of India) were entitled to equal inheritance rights along with men. The petitioner, Mary Roy (mother of author Arundhati Roy), had fought for over a decade for this right, which had significant impact on Christian women's property rights.

Correct Answer: B. Rarest of rare doctrine

Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980) was decided by a 5-judge constitutional bench that upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty under Section 302 of the IPC. The court formulated the 'rarest of rare' doctrine, holding that the death penalty should be imposed only when the alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed and the crime is so aggravated that it shocks the collective conscience of society. The court laid down a balancing test requiring courts to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing the extreme penalty of death.

Correct Answer: B. Rarest of rare doctrine

Machhi Singh v State of Punjab (1983) built upon Bachan Singh (1980) to provide more concrete guidelines for applying the 'rarest of rare' doctrine in death penalty cases. The court identified five categories of murders that may qualify as 'rarest of rare': manner of commission (brutal, grotesque), motive (extreme depravity), anti-social nature of crime, magnitude (multiple murders), and helplessness of victim. These categories have guided sentencing courts for decades though the Supreme Court has itself acknowledged inconsistency in the application of these guidelines.

Correct Answer: B. Shatrughan Chauhan v Union of India 2014

Shatrughan Chauhan v Union of India (2014) is a landmark judgment in which the Supreme Court held that inordinate and unexplained delay in execution of a death sentence, caused by the state's own inaction in processing mercy petitions, is a ground for commuting the sentence to life imprisonment. The court held that such delay, especially when combined with solitary confinement and mental illness, constitutes torture and violates Article 21. The judgment also laid down procedural safeguards including the right of death row prisoners to legal aid and minimum time between rejection of mercy petition and execution.

Correct Answer: B. Transgender persons

National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v Union of India (2014) is a landmark judgment in which the Supreme Court recognized transgender persons as a 'third gender' distinct from male and female, and held that their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, and 21 are fully applicable. The court directed the government to treat transgender persons as socially and economically backward classes for purposes of reservations in education and public employment. The judgment drew upon international human rights principles including the Yogyakarta Principles to locate transgender rights within the constitutional framework.

Correct Answer: B. Section 124A — sedition

Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar (1962) was decided by a 5-judge constitutional bench that upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A IPC (sedition) but significantly narrowed its scope. The court held that sedition law can only be invoked when the speech or writing has a tendency to incite public disorder or violence — mere criticism of the government, however strong, does not amount to sedition. This reading effectively read down Section 124A to save it from being struck down as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech under Article 19(2).