Important Supreme Court Judgments in India: Landmark Cases for Competitive Exams

 Important Supreme Court Judgments in India: Landmark Cases for Competitive Exams

The judgments of the Supreme Court of India are important for understanding the Constitution, Fundamental Rights, federalism, judicial review, elections and governance. For APSC, ADRE, UPSC, SSC, UGC NET Political Science and other competitive examinations, candidates should remember the case name, year, constitutional provision and key legal principle.

Landmark Supreme Court Judgments in India

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Subject: Basic Structure Doctrine

This is one of the most significant constitutional judgments in Indian legal history. The Supreme Court held that Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, but it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure.

The judgment established an important limitation on Parliament's constituent power and strengthened constitutional supremacy.

Key points:

• Year: 1973
• Constitutional provision: Article 368
• Principle: Basic Structure Doctrine
• Significance: Parliament cannot destroy the Constitution's basic structure through amendments.

2. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

Subject: Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights

In this case, the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights. The Court treated a constitutional amendment as law for the purposes of Article 13.

The position was subsequently modified by the 24th Constitutional Amendment and clarified through the Basic Structure Doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati.

Key points:

• Year: 1967
• Articles: 13 and 368
• Subject: Constitutional amendment and Fundamental Rights
• Examination link: Evolution of Parliament's amending power.

3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Subject: Right to life and personal liberty

The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21. It held that a procedure depriving a person of life or personal liberty must be fair, just and reasonable rather than arbitrary or oppressive.

The judgment also strengthened the relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21.

Key points:

• Year: 1978
• Articles: 14, 19 and 21
• Principle: Fair, just and reasonable procedure
• Significance: Expanded the protection of personal liberty.

4. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)

Subject: Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles

The Supreme Court held that Parliament's amending power is limited and that the Constitution's basic structure cannot be destroyed.

The Court also emphasised the importance of maintaining harmony between Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Key points:

• Year: 1980
• Articles: 31C and 368
• Principle: Limited amending power
• Significance: Constitutional balance and judicial review.

5. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Subject: President's Rule and federalism

The Supreme Court placed important limits on the use of Article 356, which provides for President's Rule in states.

The judgment established that a proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. It also emphasised the importance of testing a government's legislative majority on the floor of the Assembly.

Key points:

• Year: 1994
• Article: 356
• Principle: Judicial review of President's Rule
• Significance: Protection of federalism and elected state governments.

6. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Subject: Reservation and Other Backward Classes

The Supreme Court considered the implementation of reservation for Other Backward Classes in public employment.

The judgment upheld OBC reservation in the circumstances before the Court, established the creamy-layer principle for OBCs and generally specified a 50% ceiling on reservations, subject to exceptional circumstances.

Key points:

• Year: 1992
• Article: 16(4)
• Subject: Reservation in public employment
• Principle: Creamy layer and general 50% ceiling
• Examination link: Equality and affirmative action.

7. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

Subject: Sexual harassment at the workplace

The Supreme Court issued guidelines to prevent and address sexual harassment of women at the workplace in the absence of a dedicated parliamentary law on the subject.

The guidelines became known as the Vishaka Guidelines and were later followed by the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Key points:

• Year: 1997
• Constitutional provisions: Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21
• Principle: Protection against workplace sexual harassment
• Significance: Judicial guidelines followed by legislation.

8. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

Subject: Right to privacy

A nine-judge Constitution Bench unanimously recognised the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right protected by the Constitution, particularly under Article 21 and the broader guarantees of Part III.

The judgment has major implications for personal autonomy, informational privacy, data protection and state action.

Key points:

• Year: 2017
• Bench: Nine judges
• Article: 21, read with other Fundamental Rights
• Principle: Privacy is a Fundamental Right.

9. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

Subject: Equality, dignity and LGBTQ+ rights

The Supreme Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to decriminalise consensual sexual relations between adults of the same sex.

The judgment emphasised constitutional morality, dignity, equality and individual autonomy. It did not decriminalise non-consensual sexual acts or acts involving minors.

Key points:

• Year: 2018
• Articles: 14, 15, 19 and 21
• Principle: Equality and dignity
• Significance: Decriminalisation of consensual same-sex relations between adults.

10. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)

Subject: Adultery and gender equality

The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalised adultery in a discriminatory manner.

The Court held that the provision violated constitutional guarantees of equality and personal liberty. Adultery may still have consequences in matrimonial proceedings under applicable law, even though it is no longer a criminal offence under that provision.

Key points:

• Year: 2018
• Articles: 14, 15 and 21
• Principle: Equality and individual autonomy
• Significance: Decriminalisation of adultery.

11. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)

Subject: Living wills and end-of-life decisions

The Supreme Court recognised advance medical directives and laid down safeguards governing the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in specified circumstances.

The judgment linked the right to die with dignity to Article 21 while distinguishing lawful withdrawal of treatment under safeguards from active euthanasia.

Key points:

• Year: 2018
• Article: 21
• Subject: Advance medical directives and passive euthanasia
• Significance: End-of-life care and personal dignity.

12. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)

Subject: Instant triple talaq

The Supreme Court set aside the practice of talaq-e-biddat, commonly known as instant triple talaq, in the proceedings before it.

The judgment became an important part of debates about gender equality, personal laws and constitutional protections.

Key points:

• Year: 2017
• Subject: Muslim personal law and gender justice
• Principle: Constitutional scrutiny of instant triple talaq
• Related legislation: Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

13. K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India — Aadhaar Judgment (2018)

Subject: Aadhaar and privacy

In the Aadhaar judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the Aadhaar framework in substantial part while invalidating or restricting certain provisions and uses.

The Court examined privacy, proportionality, welfare delivery and the legal basis for requiring Aadhaar in different situations.

Key points:

• Year: 2018
• Related right: Privacy under Article 21
• Subject: Identity verification and data protection
• Examination link: Digital governance and Fundamental Rights.

14. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)

Subject: Internet restrictions and Fundamental Rights

The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practise a profession through the internet receive constitutional protection under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).

The Court held that indefinite suspension of internet services is impermissible and required relevant restriction orders to be published and made available for judicial scrutiny.

Key points:

• Year: 2020
• Articles: 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g)
• Principle: Internet restrictions must satisfy constitutional standards
• Significance: Digital rights and freedom of expression.

15. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)

Subject: Economically Weaker Sections reservation

The Supreme Court, by a 3:2 majority, upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced up to 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections in specified educational and public-employment contexts.

The judgment is important for understanding equality, affirmative action and constitutional amendments.

Key points:

• Year: 2022
• Amendment: 103rd Constitutional Amendment
• Subject: EWS reservation
• Result: Amendment upheld by a 3:2 majority.

16. Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2023)

Subject: Governance and administrative control in Delhi

The Constitution Bench addressed the distribution of legislative and executive powers between the elected government of Delhi and the Union.

The Court recognised the elected government's authority over services within the constitutional and statutory framework, while excluding the specified subjects of public order, police and land.

Subsequent legislative developments must also be considered when studying the current legal position.

Key points:

• Year: 2023
• Article: 239AA
• Subject: Delhi's special constitutional status
• Principle: Distribution of administrative powers.

17. Supriyo v. Union of India (2023)

Subject: Same-sex marriage

The Supreme Court considered petitions seeking legal recognition of marriages between same-sex couples under existing marriage laws.

The Constitution Bench did not recognise a fundamental right to marry that required the Court to extend the existing statutory marriage framework to same-sex couples. The judges also discussed the rights of queer individuals and the need to address discrimination.

Key points:

• Year: 2023
• Subject: Marriage equality and LGBTQ+ rights
• Constitutional themes: Equality, dignity and personal autonomy
• Examination link: Fundamental Rights and constitutional interpretation.

18. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024)

Subject: Electoral bonds and political funding

The Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme in February 2024.

The Court held that anonymous political funding through the scheme violated the constitutional right to information about political funding under Article 19(1)(a). It also examined amendments connected with corporate political contributions.

Key points:

• Year: 2024
• Article: 19(1)(a)
• Subject: Electoral transparency and political funding
• Result: Electoral Bond Scheme struck down.

19. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024)

Subject: Sub-classification within Scheduled Castes

A seven-judge Constitution Bench held by a 6:1 majority that states may sub-classify Scheduled Castes for the purpose of distributing reservation benefits more equitably, subject to constitutional requirements and a valid evidentiary basis.

The decision reconsidered the earlier position in E. V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004).

Key points:

• Year: 2024
• Bench: Seven judges
• Subject: Reservation policy
• Principle: Sub-classification may be permissible on a constitutionally valid basis.

20. In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023)

Subject: Special status of Jammu and Kashmir

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the steps taken to make Article 370 inoperative.

The Court also directed that legislative assembly elections be held in Jammu and Kashmir by 30 September 2024 and that steps be taken towards restoring statehood as soon as possible.

Key points:

• Judgment: December 2023
• Article: 370
• Subject: Jammu and Kashmir's constitutional status
• Examination link: Federalism, constitutional provisions and reorganisation of states.

---

Part II: Important Recent Supreme Court Judgments in 2026

The following decisions are included in the Supreme Court's official landmark-judgment summaries available as of 25 October 2026. Candidates should read the Court's own summaries for the precise legal findings. 

21. Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. (2 July 2026)

Subject: AI-generated fake legal citations

The Supreme Court set aside decisions of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) after finding that the decisions relied on non-existent judgments and fabricated passages attributed to legal authorities.

The Court stressed that lawyers and judges must verify legal authorities rather than rely on unverified AI-generated citations. It directed the Bar Council of India to constitute a committee to consider guiding principles and disciplinary consequences.

Key examination points:

• Judgment date: 2 July 2026
• Citation: 2026 INSC 668
• Subject: Artificial intelligence and judicial integrity
• Principle: AI-generated legal material must be verified before being cited as precedent.

22. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (27 May 2026)

Subject: Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar

The Supreme Court upheld the Election Commission's authority to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls under the applicable constitutional and statutory framework.

The Court considered the objectives of electoral-roll accuracy, the inclusion of eligible voters, the removal of ineligible entries and the procedural safeguards applicable to the exercise. It also clarified the distinction between a limited electoral-eligibility inquiry and a formal determination of citizenship.

Key examination points:

• Judgment date: 27 May 2026
• Citation: 2026 INSC 564
• Constitutional provisions: Articles 324, 325 and 326
• Statute: Representation of the People Act, 1950
• Subject: Election administration and electoral-roll revision.

23. Harish Rana v. Union of India (11 March 2026)

Subject: Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and palliative care

The Supreme Court permitted the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in the specific circumstances of Harish Rana's case, following medical assessments that his condition was irreversible and continued treatment offered no therapeutic benefit.

The Court directed that the process be implemented through an appropriate palliative and end-of-life care plan. It also clarified aspects of the safeguards established in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018).

This decision does not create a general permission for active euthanasia. It concerns withdrawal of medical treatment under the applicable safeguards.

Key examination points:

• Judgment date: 11 March 2026
• Citation: 2026 INSC 222
• Constitutional provision: Article 21
• Related case: Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)
• Subject: Dignity, medical ethics and end-of-life care.

24. In Re: Judicial Sensitivity in Cases Involving Sexual Offences (10 February 2026)

Subject: Judicial approach to sexual-offence cases

The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment under challenge in proceedings involving allegations of sexual offences against a minor.

The Court also requested the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, to establish a committee of experts to develop guidance aimed at improving sensitivity and compassion in judicial handling of sexual-offence cases and other vulnerable cases.

Key examination points:

• Judgment date: 10 February 2026
• Citation: 2026 INSC 165
• Subject: Criminal justice and judicial sensitivity
• Related law: Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

25. Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. S. V. Global Mill Limited (9 February 2026)

Subject: Land acquisition appeals and limitation

The Supreme Court examined limitation and related questions arising from appeals under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The decision addressed the application of the relevant statutory framework to land-acquisition proceedings and stressed a pragmatic approach to applications seeking condonation of delay.

Key examination points:

• Judgment date: 9 February 2026
• Citation: 2026 INSC 138
• Relevant law: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
• Subject: Land acquisition, compensation and limitation.

---

Part III: Quick Revision Table

Supreme Court case	Year	Key principle
Golaknath v. State of Punjab	1967	Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala	1973	Basic Structure Doctrine
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India	1978	Fair, just and reasonable procedure
Minerva Mills v. Union of India	1980	Limited amending power
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India	1994	Judicial review of President's Rule
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India	1992	OBC reservation and creamy layer
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan	1997	Workplace sexual-harassment guidelines
Puttaswamy v. Union of India	2017	Right to privacy
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India	2018	Decriminalisation of consensual same-sex relations
Common Cause v. Union of India	2018	Advance medical directives and end-of-life safeguards
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India	2022	EWS reservation
Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India	2024	Electoral bonds struck down
State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh	2024	Sub-classification within Scheduled Castes
Harish Rana v. Union of India	2026	Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment under safeguards
Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank	2026	Verification of AI-generated legal citations

---

Part IV: Practice MCQs

1. Which case established the Basic Structure Doctrine?

A. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
B. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
C. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
D. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India

Answer: B. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

2. The right to privacy was recognised as a Fundamental Right in which case?

A. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
B. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
C. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
D. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India

Answer: C. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India

3. Which case is associated with judicial review of President's Rule under Article 356?

A. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
B. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
C. Joseph Shine v. Union of India
D. Supriyo v. Union of India

Answer: A. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India

4. The Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme in which year?

A. 2017
B. 2019
C. 2022
D. 2024

Answer: D. 2024

5. Which case is associated with workplace sexual-harassment guidelines?

A. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
B. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
C. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
D. Common Cause v. Union of India

Answer: A. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

6. Which Constitutional Amendment introduced EWS reservation?

A. 86th Amendment
B. 91st Amendment
C. 103rd Amendment
D. 106th Amendment

Answer: C. 103rd Amendment

7. Which 2026 judgment addressed fabricated AI-generated legal citations?

A. Harish Rana v. Union of India
B. Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.
C. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India
D. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh

Answer: B. Pooja Ramesh Singh v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.

8. Which 2026 judgment concerned the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar?

A. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India
B. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
C. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
D. Joseph Shine v. Union of India

Answer: A. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India

9. Which case recognised advance medical directives and safeguards for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in 2018?

A. Common Cause v. Union of India
B. Golaknath v. State of Punjab
C. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
D. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India

Answer: A. Common Cause v. Union of India

10. Which case concerned sub-classification within Scheduled Castes in 2024?

A. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh
B. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
C. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India
D. Supriyo v. Union of India

Answer: A. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh

---

Conclusion

Supreme Court judgments are essential for understanding the evolution of Indian constitutional law. For competitive examinations, candidates should prioritise the Basic Structure Doctrine, Fundamental Rights, judicial review, federalism, reservation, privacy, electoral transparency and recent constitutional developments.

For current judgments, always check the official case summary and final judgment before using precise legal conclusions in examination notes.

Official Sources

• Supreme Court of India:
• Supreme Court of India:
• Constitution of India: Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice
• India Code: Official repository of Indian legislation
• Press Information Bureau (PIB), Government of India

Title: Important Supreme Court Judgments in India: Landmark Cases and Recent Decisions

Description: Study important Supreme Court judgments in India for UPSC, APSC, ADRE and UGC NET. Learn landmark cases, constitutional articles, recent 2026 decisions and practice MCQs.

Focus keywords: Important Supreme Court Judgments in India, Landmark Supreme Court Cases, Indian Constitution Cases, Supreme Court Judgments for UPSC, APSC Polity Notes.