Landmark Supreme Court Cases — Set 7

Correct Answer: B. Bonded labour and the right to live with human dignity

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984) was a landmark PIL case brought by the Bonded Labour Liberation Front about the widespread existence of bonded labour in stone quarries in Faridabad, Haryana, in violation of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and Article 23 of the Constitution. Justice Bhagwati held that the right to live with human dignity, enshrined in Article 21, includes the right to be free from bonded labour. The court ordered the release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers and issued comprehensive directions to the government for their welfare.

Correct Answer: C. Match and fireworks industry in Sivakasi

MC Mehta v State of Tamil Nadu (1996) specifically addressed the rampant employment of children in the hazardous match and fireworks manufacturing industry in Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions prohibiting children from working in hazardous industries and directed the state to ensure their education and welfare. The court created a Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund where employers violating child labour laws had to deposit money. The judgment remains a milestone in the enforcement of child labour prohibitions under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.

Correct Answer: B. Precautionary principle and polluter pays principle

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996) is a seminal environmental law judgment dealing with the devastating pollution caused by tanneries in Tamil Nadu to agricultural land, groundwater, and drinking water. The Supreme Court applied the Precautionary Principle (that environmental harm must be anticipated and prevented even without complete scientific evidence) and the Polluter Pays Principle (the polluter must bear the cost of remedying environmental damage) as part of the law of the land in India. The court held that sustainable development, which balances development and environmental protection, is part of Article 21.

Correct Answer: B. Forest conservation and management of all forest lands in India

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India (1995) began as a PIL about illegal logging in the Nilgiri forests but evolved into a comprehensive supervision by the Supreme Court of the management of all forest land across India. The court held in 1996 that the word 'forest' in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 must be understood according to its dictionary meaning, covering all areas recorded as forest in government records. This dramatically expanded the scope of forest protection. The case has continued for decades with hundreds of orders constituting one of the most expansive exercises of judicial power in environmental matters.

Correct Answer: A. Right to clean drinking water and a pollution-free environment

Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar (1991) is the landmark case in which the Supreme Court held that the right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right to enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. The court held that if anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to life. This case was a milestone in recognizing environmental rights as part of fundamental rights.

Correct Answer: B. Workers employed in Asiad construction projects

People's Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India (1982) arose from a PIL filed before the Supreme Court about violations of various labour laws in the construction of sports facilities for the Asian Games (Asiad) in New Delhi. Justice Bhagwati held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood and workers employed on government projects must receive minimum wages and other statutory protections. The court held that non-payment of minimum wages to workers amounts to forced labour under Article 23. This case was crucial in extending constitutional protection to migrant construction workers.

Correct Answer: B. Arming tribal youth as Special Police Officers to fight Maoists

Nandini Sundar v State of Chhattisgarh (2011), popularly known as the Salwa Judum case, condemned the State of Chhattisgarh for arming tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) to fight Maoist insurgents. The Supreme Court held that this practice was unconstitutional as it put civilians, particularly tribals, at the forefront of an armed conflict, violating their right to life and dignity under Article 21. The court directed the State to cease the practice and withdraw all SPOs engaged in counter-insurgency operations. The judgment was a strong statement against the state's strategy of using civilians in conflict.

Correct Answer: B. Fake encounter killings and impunity under AFSPA

Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) v Union of India (2016) is a landmark judgment in which the Supreme Court held that the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) does not grant immunity to armed forces personnel for committing fake encounters and extrajudicial killings. The court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate 1,528 alleged fake encounter killings in Manipur. The judgment rejected the argument that courts cannot review military operations and established that right to life under Article 21 applies even in disturbed areas covered by AFSPA.

Correct Answer: B. Aadhaar cannot be mandated for private entities or made mandatory for welfare benefits not funded by Consolidated Fund

K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2018), the Aadhaar constitutional validity case, upheld the Aadhaar Act by a 4:1 majority as a legitimate exercise of state power with adequate safeguards. However, the court significantly struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act which permitted private entities (like telecom companies and banks) to use Aadhaar for authentication. The court also held that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for school admissions or mobile connections. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud wrote a powerful dissent declaring the entire Aadhaar scheme unconstitutional as a surveillance infrastructure violating privacy.

Correct Answer: B. Candidates must disclose criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities before elections

Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India (2002) is a landmark electoral reform judgment in which the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to require all candidates contesting elections to disclose their criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities, and educational qualifications as part of their nomination papers. The court held that voters have a fundamental right to know about their candidates under the right to information as part of Article 19(1)(a). This judgment led to the amendment of the Representation of People Act and significantly enhanced electoral transparency in India.