Landmark Supreme Court Cases — Set 6

Correct Answer: C. Free speech cannot be surrendered to the intolerance of the heckler

S. Rangarajan v P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) is a landmark free speech case in which the Supreme Court held that the state cannot suppress a film merely because some sections of society object to it or threaten violence. The court declared that 'freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of violence — that would be tantamount to negation of the rule of law and surrender to blackmail and intimidation.' The state has the duty to protect free speech from the heckler's veto, not capitulate to it.

Correct Answer: B. Internet shutdown orders must be proportionate, necessary and subject to judicial review

Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) arose from the prolonged internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir following the revocation of Article 370 in August 2019. The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression and the right to carry on any trade or business through the medium of internet are protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) respectively. The court held that internet shutdowns are subject to judicial review, must be temporary and proportionate, and orders imposing them must be published so citizens can challenge them. However, the court declined to immediately order restoration of internet services.

Correct Answer: B. Tenth Schedule — Anti-defection law

Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu (1992) was a 5-judge constitutional bench judgment that upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) added by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment in 1985. The court held that the Tenth Schedule does not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution as it seeks to curb the evil of political defections and uphold democratic values and the mandate of the electorate. However, it struck down Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule which had excluded judicial review of the Speaker's decisions, holding that finality clauses cannot completely oust judicial review.

Correct Answer: B. Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu 1992

Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu (1992) established that the Speaker's decisions on anti-defection petitions under the Tenth Schedule are subject to judicial review by courts, though only after the Speaker delivers a final order. The court struck down Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule which purported to make the Speaker's decisions final and not subject to any court scrutiny. The court held that the constitutional requirement of reasonableness and judicial review flowing from Basic Structure cannot be excluded even by Parliament. Subsequent cases like Nabam Rebia (2016) further refined the scope of review of Speaker's decisions.

Correct Answer: B. Hawala transactions and corruption of public officials

Vineet Narain v Union of India (1998) arose from PIL petitions challenging the CBI's failure to properly investigate the Hawala scandal, in which money was alleged to have been channelled to politicians of all major parties through the hawala route. The Supreme Court issued sweeping directions to ensure the CBI's independence from political interference, held that the CBI Director cannot be transferred without the Supreme Court's leave during an ongoing investigation, and declared that 'no one is above the law.' The case established important principles of institutional independence of investigative agencies.

Correct Answer: B. 122 licences

Centre for PIL v Union of India (2012), the 2G Spectrum case, is one of the most significant cases of judicial review of executive action in Indian history. The Supreme Court cancelled 122 2G spectrum licences that had been allocated by the telecom ministry under A. Raja on a first-come, first-served basis, which the court found to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The court held that natural resources belong to the people and must be allocated through a transparent, competitive process. The allocation had resulted in a massive loss to the national exchequer estimated at around Rs. 1.76 lakh crore.

Correct Answer: B. 1993

Manohar Lal Sharma v Principal Secretary (2014), the Coal Allocation Scam case, saw the Supreme Court declare all coal block allocations made since 1993 as arbitrary and illegal, and quashed 214 out of 218 coal block allocations. The court found that the allocation process was neither transparent nor objective and amounted to a bonanza for private companies at the expense of public resources. The judgment reinforced that natural resources are public goods that must be distributed through fair, transparent processes, and it led to significant disruption in the power and steel sectors that had been relying on these allocations.

Correct Answer: B. 99th Constitutional Amendment

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India (2015), the NJAC case, struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 by a 4:1 majority. The court held that the NJAC, which would have given the executive a role in judicial appointments, violated the independence of the judiciary which is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The judgment preserved the collegium system of judicial appointments despite widespread criticism of its opacity and lack of accountability. Justice Chelameswar delivered the sole dissent upholding the NJAC.

Correct Answer: A. First, Second and Third Judges cases

The collegium system evolved through three Supreme Court cases: S.P. Gupta v Union of India (1981) — the First Judges case — held that the executive has primacy in judicial appointments; Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India (1993) — the Second Judges case — reversed this and held that the Chief Justice of India's opinion has primacy; and Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 — the Third Judges case — clarified that 'opinion' means a collegium of the CJI and four senior-most judges. These three cases together established the collegium system.

Correct Answer: B. A newspaper article about undertrial prisoners

Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar (1979) is celebrated as the first PIL in Indian legal history because it arose from a news article published in the Indian Express about the plight of thousands of undertrial prisoners in Bihar who had been in jail for periods exceeding the maximum sentence for their alleged offences. Advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani converted this newspaper report into a writ petition before the Supreme Court, and Justice P.N. Bhagwati took suo motu cognizance of the situation. The case led to the release of over 40,000 undertrial prisoners and established the procedural innovation of PIL.