Landmark cases relating to Fundamental Rights
A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
In this case, A.K. Gopalan filed a petition under Article 32 thereby invoking the writ of habeas corpus against his detention. Later, he was prohibited from disclosing the grounds based on which he was detained since Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 prohibited such disclosure in the court. As a result, he claimed that such detention violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and further the provisions of the Act violate Article 22 of the Constitution.
This case led to the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India wherein the Hon’ble Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution shall not require the Indian courts to apply the due process of the standard of law. Further, the Hon’ble Court upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 except for Section 14, which provided that the reasons for detention given to the detainee or any representation made by him against such reasons shall not be disclosed in a court.
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1952)
In this case, the Constitutional validity of the first Amendment of 1951, which curtailed the right to property, was challenged. In this case, it was challenged that the amendments that curb the fundamental right of the citizens are not allowed by Article 13 regarding Article 31A and 31B. It was held by the Supreme Court that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend fundamental rights.
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)
In this case, Golak Nath and his family claimed an excess of 500 sections of land in Punjab. Meanwhile, the state government made an enactment namely, Punjab Securities and Land Tenures Act, 1950 by virtue of which Golak Nath and his family were only allowed to keep an excess of 30 sections of land and not more than that. As a result, Golak Nath filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution questioning the legitimacy of the enactment and further stating that his fundamental right to property was being violated. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Parliament had the ability to revise the Fundamental Rights mentioned under Part III of the Constitution of India or not. The Court ruled that Parliament does not have the power to curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
In this case, the aforementioned Golaknath case was reviewed. It was held by the Court that the “basic structure” of the Constitution cannot be amended. The Supreme Court through its 7:6 judgement had ruled that the Parliament has no powers or the authority to alter the basic structure of the constitution.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
This case dealt with election disputes involving the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi along with the Purpose of the 39th Amendment of the Constitution. The primary question involved in the case was of the validity of clause (4) of the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1975. The Supreme Court, in this case, added certain features as ‘Basic Features’ to the already existing list of basic features laid down in the Kesavananda Bharati case, such as the rule of law, democracy and judicial review.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
In this case, Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded in ‘public interest’. The Government refused to provide any details in the interests of the general public when the reasons for impounding her passport were asked. As a result, Maneka Gandhi filed a writ petition under Article 32 stating that the action of the Government violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Government responded by stating that her passport was impounded because her presence was likely to be required regarding certain legal proceedings before a ‘Commission of Inquiry’. The Supreme Court held that a ‘procedure’ under Article 21 of the Constitution must be free from arbitrary, unfair, oppressive, or unreasonable aspects.
Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. (1980)
In this case, the Supreme Court provided certain clarifications on the interpretation of the basic structure doctrine. The Court held that the power of the Parliament is limited in amending the Constitution. Therefore, the parliament cannot exercise such limited power to grant itself an unlimited authority of amending the Constitution. Thus, the Parliament cannot take away the Fundamental Rights of individuals. The judgement in this case also struck down Clause 4 and 5 of the Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976 enacted during the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
