Landmark Supreme Court Cases — Set 8

Correct Answer: B. It violated right to information of voters and enabled quid pro quo corruption

Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India (2024), the Electoral Bonds case, saw a unanimous 5-judge constitutional bench strike down the Electoral Bonds Scheme introduced in 2018. The court held that the scheme violated voters' right to information about political funding under Article 19(1)(a) as it allowed unlimited anonymous corporate donations to political parties. The court also found that the scheme enabled quid pro quo arrangements where companies donated bonds in exchange for regulatory favours. The court directed the State Bank of India to stop issuing bonds and ordered disclosure of all bond purchasers and encashers.

Correct Answer: A. 103rd Amendment providing 10% EWS reservation

Janhit Abhiyan v Union of India (2022) was decided by a 3:2 majority of a 5-judge constitutional bench that upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment providing 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) from the unreserved category in government jobs and educational institutions. The majority held that economic criterion alone can be a basis for affirmative action and that the exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from EWS reservation does not violate the Constitution. Justices Ravindra Bhat and S. Ravindra Bhat dissented, holding the amendment violated the Basic Structure by using poverty as a ground to exclude the poorest among SC/ST/OBC communities.

Correct Answer: B. Entry of women of menstruating age (10-50 years) into Sabarimala temple

Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala (2018) is a landmark 5-judge constitutional bench judgment that held, by a 4:1 majority, that the practice of excluding women between the ages of 10 and 50 years (menstruating age) from the Sabarimala temple violates Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution. The majority held that physiological characteristics unique to women cannot be the basis for denying them the right to worship. Justice Indu Malhotra wrote a powerful dissent holding that constitutional morality should not override religious faith. The judgment was later referred to a 9-judge bench for consideration of larger questions.

Correct Answer: B. Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993

Ismail Faruqui v Union of India (1994) dealt with the challenge to the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, which the government had enacted to acquire 67 acres of land in Ayodhya including the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site and surrounding areas. The Supreme Court upheld the Act but struck down Section 4(3) which had abated all pending suits relating to the disputed site. The court also delivered an important constitutional observation that a mosque is not an essential part of Islamic practice, which became very controversial and influential in subsequent Ayodhya litigation.

Correct Answer: B. Ram Lalla (Hindu deity) represented by VHP

M. Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das (2019), the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit, was decided unanimously by a 5-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court after a marathon 40-day hearing. The court awarded the 2.77-acre disputed site to Ram Lalla (the Hindu deity) to be managed by a government-created trust (which became the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust). The court also directed the government to provide an alternative 5-acre plot to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for construction of a mosque. The judgment carefully balanced property law, faith, and constitutional values.

Correct Answer: B. The revocation was constitutional and Jammu and Kashmir's statehood must be restored

In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023) saw a 5-judge constitutional bench unanimously uphold the constitutional validity of the Presidential Orders of August 5, 2019 that effectively abrogated Article 370 and bifurcated the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories. The court held that Article 370 was a temporary provision and the President had the authority to abrogate it during President's Rule. However, the court unanimously directed the Election Commission to conduct elections in Jammu and Kashmir by September 30, 2024 and held that restoration of statehood should happen at the earliest. The court did not comment on the bifurcation into Union Territories.

Correct Answer: A. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act

Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) is the landmark internet free speech judgment in which the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 66A criminalized sending 'offensive' or 'menacing' online messages and had been widely misused to arrest people for satirical social media posts criticizing politicians. The court held Section 66A was unconstitutional as its vague and overbroad language failed to satisfy the requirement that restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2) must be narrowly defined. The court also upheld Section 69A (website blocking) with the caveat that blocking orders must be reasoned and subject to judicial review.

Correct Answer: B. Mid-day Meal Scheme in all government schools

People's Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2011), the Right to Food case, is a long-running PIL in which the Supreme Court issued orders expanding entitlements under various food security schemes. One of the most significant orders was the direction to all states and union territories to universalise the Mid-day Meal Scheme in all government and government-aided primary schools, converting it from a dry ration scheme to a cooked meal scheme. The court also issued orders on expanding the Public Distribution System, and these judicial orders significantly influenced the eventual enactment of the National Food Security Act, 2013.

Correct Answer: B. Passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life support) with High Court permission

Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v Union of India (2011) concerned a PIL seeking active euthanasia for Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse who had been in a persistent vegetative state for over 36 years following a brutal assault. The Supreme Court rejected the prayer for active euthanasia but permitted passive euthanasia — withdrawal of life support — subject to guidelines including the requirement of High Court permission through a bench of three judges. The court held that passive euthanasia can be allowed in cases of PVS patients with no chance of recovery, and this judgment later paved the way for the broader recognition of the right to die with dignity in Common Cause v Union of India (2018).

Correct Answer: B. Striking down the 39th Amendment and establishing free and fair elections as Basic Structure

Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975) is the Supreme Court case that struck down Clause 4 of the 39th Constitutional Amendment which had retrospectively validated the election of the Prime Minister and placed it beyond judicial review. The court, applying the Basic Structure doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati, held that free and fair elections and the rule of law are part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Though Indira Gandhi had won the Emergency and used the 39th Amendment to nullify the Allahabad High Court judgment setting aside her election, the Supreme Court struck down this legislative override of the judiciary.