Jul 10, 2025
30
mins read
What sets these landmark judgements apart is their profound impact on India’s constitutional framework, governance, and social justice. Unlike routine decisions, they interpret foundational rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21, establish doctrines like the basic structure, and influence national policy. These rulings often result from judicial innovation, such as recognizing privacy as a fundamental right or creating guidelines where laws were absent. Their relevance extends beyond law into public policy, making them essential for UPSC preparation. With long-term precedent value, they shape future legal interpretations and reflect the evolving relationship between the state, individual rights, and democratic principles.
Here is a list of 40 Most Important Landmark Judgements of the Supreme court of India with context and relevance:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) - This foundational case established the “basic structure” doctrine, holding that Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s fundamental framework. It ensures that core constitutional principles (like democracy, secularism, federalism) remain immune from amendment. For UPSC, Kesavananda is an important landmark judgement of the supreme court of India for understanding constitutional supremacy and judicial review.
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) - In the Mandal case, the Supreme Court upheld reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment, subject to the 50% limit. It affirmed that reservations aim to promote social justice, but stressed maintenance of administrative efficiency. It is an important landmark judgement UPSC aspirants must note its guidance on affirmative action and Article 16.
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) - This case reinforced federalism and constitutional rule. The Court ruled that President’s Rule (President’s Rule) in states is subject to judicial review; it struck down arbitrary dismissals of state governments. It was a landmark judgement on state autonomy and the limits of Article 356. It is one of the landmark judgement UPSC readers study for federal principles and abuse of emergency provisions.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) - Expanding the scope of personal liberty (Article 21), the Court held that “life and personal liberty” cannot be deprived without a procedure that is just, fair, and reasonable. Maneka overruled prior law and paved the way for reading other fundamental rights into Article 21. It's a crucial landmark judgement for UPSC on rights to due process.
Shah Bano Begum v. Union of India (1985) - A landmark judgement of the Supreme court on women’s rights and personal law, the Court ordered maintenance for a divorced Muslim woman under general law (CrPC 125), despite Muslim Personal Law. This led to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. UPSC aspirants note this for its interplay of religion, gender justice, and legislative response.
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997) - This important Supreme court judgement laid down the Vishakha Guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace (until the law was enacted). It applied Articles 14, 19, 21 to protect women’s workplace rights. It is a landmark judgement in UPSC studies for development of law via fundamental rights and directive principles (later codified in law).
Berubari Union case (1960): This landmark case was regarding the Parliament’s power to transfer the territory of Berubari to Pakistan. The Supreme Court examined Article 3 in detail and held that the Parliament cannot make laws under this article in order to execute the Nehru-Noon agreement. Hence, the 9th Amendment Act was passed to enforce the agreement.
Lily Thomas v Union of India (2000): Here, the SC held that the second marriage of a Hindu man without divorcing the first wife, even if the man had converted to Islam, is void unless the first marriage had been dissolved according to the Hindu Marriage Act.
I.R Coelho and State of Tamil Nadu (2007): This landmark judgement held that if a law is included in the 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution, it can still be examined and confronted in court. The 9th Schedule of the Indian Constitution contains a list of acts and laws which cannot be challenged in a court of law. The Waman Rao ruling ensured that acts and laws mentioned in the IX schedule till 24 April 1973, shall not be changed or challenged, but any attempt to amend or add more acts to that schedule will suffer close inspection and examination by the judiciary system.
Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011): The SC ruled that individuals had a right to die with dignity, allowing passive euthanasia with guidelines. The need to reform India’s laws on euthanasia was triggered by the tragic case of Aruna Shanbaug who lay in a vegetative state (blind, paralysed and deaf) for 42 years.
Table of content
Minerva Mills case (1980): This case again strengthens the Basic Structure doctrine. The judgement struck down 2 changes made to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976, declaring them to be violative of the basic structure. The judgement makes it clear that the Constitution, and not the Parliament is supreme.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) - The Supreme Court struck down triple talaq (instant divorce) as unconstitutional. By a 3:2 majority, it held that the practice violated Muslim women’s equality (Article 14). This landmark Supreme Court judgement balanced fundamental rights against personal law and directed Parliament to legislate on Muslim divorce. UPSC students see it as an important supreme court judgement on gender justice and secular constitutionalism.
Citizenship (Assam) Case - Section 6A of the Citizenship Act (2024) - A five-judge Bench upheld the constitutionality of Section 6A (Assam Accord) by 4:1. The Court ruled that Parliament had the power under Article 11 to grant citizenship to persons from Assam before specified cutoff dates. It reaffirmed that mere presence of an ethnic group does not violate cultural rights. This case is important for understanding the legislative domain in citizenship matters and the balance of cultural and humanitarian concerns.
Sub-Classification within Reserved Categories (2024) - A seven-judge bench upheld Parliament’s power to sub-divide Scheduled Caste reservations. Overturning a 2004 ruling, it held that Article 14 allows reasonable classification even within a backward class, based on empirical data. This landmark judgement in India (6:1) enabled states like Punjab to maintain sub-quotas (e.g. Mazhabi Sikhs) under reservation. UPSC aspirants study it for its lessons on equality, data-driven social policy, and the scope of Article 14.
Supriyo v. Union of India (2023/2025) - In a Constitution Bench decision (reported 2023, review refused in 2025), the Court held that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage under the Constitution. It emphasized that marriage is a statutory institution (Article 11) and referred the matter back to Parliament. This landmark judgement of the Supreme court upheld legislative sovereignty over marriage laws. This case is a key UPSC reference on LGBTQ rights and separation of powers, showing that expansion of rights in this domain requires law-making by Parliament.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and K.S. Puttaswamy II (2022) -This important supreme court judgement Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) unanimously established privacy as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. While upholding Aadhaar with safeguards, the Court set detailed principles on data protection, consent, and the broader scope of privacy, including voter privacy and bodily autonomy, making it a foundational case for digital rights and constitutional freedoms in India. Building on this, K.S. Puttaswamy II (2022) reaffirmed Aadhaar’s constitutionality but imposed strict limitations, ensuring privacy protection through mandatory consent for data sharing and restricting biometric use to welfare schemes. Together, these landmark judgements are crucial for understanding how fundamental rights are balanced with state interests in governance and technology—frequently referenced in UPSC discussions on privacy and digital governance.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) - This landmark judgement of the Supreme court decriminalized consensual gay sex by reading down Section 377 IPC. By emphasizing liberty and dignity, the SC expanded equality for LGBTQ+ persons. It’s crucial UPSC material on progressive realization of rights. (Though Navtej was in 2018, it is part of this period’s reform trend and underscores constitutional morality over prevailing social mores.)
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) - The Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and violating free speech under Article 19 (Sec 66A is outdated, but this 2015 case remains one of the landmark judgements of the Supreme court of India). It reaffirmed the doctrine of reasonable restrictions: restrictions must be narrowly tailored to a pressing state interest. This important Supreme court judgement is core UPSC content on freedom of speech in the digital age.
National Legal Services Authority and Union of India (2014): This landmark judgement of the Supreme court of India resulted in the recognition of transgender persons as a third gender. The SC also instructed the government to treat them as minorities and expand the reservations in education, jobs, education, etc.
Triple Talaq Judgement (2016): The SC outlawed the backward practice of instant ‘triple talaq’, which permitted Muslim men to unilaterally end their marriages by uttering the word “talaq” three times without making any provision for maintenance or alimony. Read about the Triple Talaq Bill, 2019.
Right To Privacy (2017): The SC declared the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right protected under the Indian Constitution.
L Chandra Kumar Case (1997): This landmark case in India, SC ruled that the power of judicial review vested in the Supreme Court and High Courts by Articles 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) and 226 respectively is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Waman Rao Case (1981)- In one of the landmark judgements of the Supreme court again reiterated the Basic Structure doctrine. It also drew a line of demarcation as April 24th, 1973 i.e., the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, and held that it should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to that date.
Biswajit Das v. CBI (2025) - In January 2025, the Supreme Court, led by CJI Khanna, expanded its power under Article 142. It held that broad powers in Article 142 allow the Court to amend defects in order to advance substantial justice. This clarified how the Court can oversee appeals and deliver just outcomes, even to correct earlier errors. UPSC aspirants view it as a milestone on judicial review and the reach of Article 142.
Legal Aid & Access to Justice Case (2022)
Reiterating Hussainara Khatoon, the Court issued binding directives to ensure free legal aid under the Legal Services Authorities Act and constitutional mandate (Article 39A). It directed timely appointment of counsel and infrastructure support. This case figures prominently in UPSC segments on social justice and judicial accountability.
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) - In this early post-Constitution case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Preventive Detention Act, ruling that a person’s detention was valid if done according to "procedure established by law" under Article 21-even if it violated other fundamental rights like Articles 14, 19, or 22. The Court adopted a narrow, literal interpretation of Article 21, separating it from other rights. This landmark judgement of the Supreme court is important in UPSC for understanding the early approach to fundamental rights and how the interpretation evolved post-Maneka Gandhi (1978), where the Court adopted a broader, rights-based reading of liberty and due process. Gopalan’s case shows the initial judicial restraint and textualism in constitutional interpretation.
Om Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) - On January 11, 2025, the Court converted a death sentence into juvenile punishment in a robbery-turned-murder case. It ruled that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 applies retroactively to accused juveniles from 2015 onward. This corrected a “grave error” where Om Prakash had been tried as an adult despite being 16 at the time of the crime. The judgement reinforces child rights and procedural fairness. For UPSC, it highlights evolving criminal law (juvenile justice) and the judiciary’s role in protecting minors.
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) - An earlier landmark judgement of the Supreme court of India often cited in UPSC, that held speedy trial and free legal aid are part of Article 21. It recognized undertrial prisoners’ rights and forced release of many detenues. This landmark judgement of the Supreme court remains foundational on the right to justice and access to courts for the poor.
Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) - A collective name for cases mandating police reforms, it directed states to ensure political neutrality, fixed tenure for top police officers, and accountability mechanisms. It is a landmark on criminal justice administration and constitutional morality (Article 355, state obligations). UPSC covers it under police reforms and governance.
Vineet Narain v. UOI (1998) - In the Jain Hawala case, the Court laid down guidelines for CBI autonomy and fair investigations, prefiguring the formation of CVC and CBI vigilance. It is significant UPSC content on judicial measures against corruption and investigative agencies.
Pedophilia case (2011) - The SC restored the conviction and sentence of 6-year (RI) rigorous imprisonment imposed on 2 UK nationals who were acquitted by the Bombay High Court in a paedophilia case. The court said that “the sexual abuse of children is one of the most heinous crimes.”
Nirbhaya Case (2014) - Introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and definition of rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973.
Sajjan Kumar Trial (2018) - The Supreme Court upheld the life sentence for 1984 riots accused Sajjan Kumar, setting strong standards of evidence in communal violence cases. It imposed accountability on public office holders for law and order. The landmark judgement of the supreme court emphasis on minority protection and command responsibility.
Regulating Industrial Alcohol (2024) - A nine-judge Constitution Bench (2024) overruled a 1990 precedent and held that states have power to regulate industrial alcohol under Entry 8 (intoxicating liquors) of the State List. By an 8:1 majority, the Court treated all alcohol (even non-potable) as “intoxicating liquor,” protecting states’ rights over its manufacture. This reasserted cooperative federalism and public health concerns. UPSC aspirants learn it for its federal structure impact and reversal of past law.
State’s Power to Tax Mines and Minerals (2024) - In July 2024 a nine-judge bench held by majority that royalties on mineral production are not “taxes” and that states can impose taxes and cesses on minerals under Entry 50 of List II. It affirmed that the Mines Act (MMDR) does not strip states of taxing authority over mineral rights. The judgement resolved decades of confusion (overturning a typographical misstatement in a 1989 case). It is a landmark judgement of the supreme court of India on Centre-State fiscal federalism, important for UPSC in understanding resource federalism and industry regulation.
Regulatory Powers of Union & State – Economic Policies Case (2023)
A Bench examined multiple Centre‑imposed economic policies (e.g., pricing controls, licensing) and held that they must satisfy Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). It struck down arbitrary policy directives lacking reasonable classification. UPSC candidates should refer to this for economic governance and market‑regulation modules.
Electoral Bond Scheme (2024) - A five-judge Constitution Bench (Feb 2024) unanimously struck down the government’s Electoral Bond scheme as unconstitutional. The Court held the scheme violated voters’ right to information (Article 19(1)(a)) and equality (Article 14), as it allowed anonymous political funding. This famous court case in India is pivotal in UPSC studies on electoral transparency and checks on political financing.
Right to Information and Elections - The Court has emphasized broad RTI application in electoral governance. For instance, in PUCL v. UoI (Post-elections), it held that AC expense reports are public records. These important supreme court judgements reinforce democracy through transparency, a key UPSC theme on accountability.
Union v. Association for Democratic Reforms (1992) - This important supreme court judgement case upheld citizens’ right to electoral transparency: requiring political parties to furnish information on candidate criminal, financial, and educational background, under EC’s rules. It is a landmark judgement of the Supreme court of India on fair elections and right to information.
Association for Democratic Reforms v. UOI (2002) - The Court held political parties as “public authorities” under the RTI Act, subjecting them to disclosure norms. It promoted openness in party funding and candidate details. This is relevant UPSC material on electoral reforms and citizens’ right to know.
This table will help you effectively use them for UPSC preparation (Prelims, Mains – GS II & GS IV, Essay, and Interview):
Theme | Important Landmark Judgement of the Supreme Court | How to Use for UPSC |
Basic Structure Doctrine | Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills, I.R. Coelho | Use in GS II answers on constitutional amendments, checks on parliamentary power, federalism, and polity. |
Fundamental Rights & Article 21 | Maneka Gandhi, A.K. Gopalan, Puttaswamy, Aruna Shanbaug | Illustrate how rights evolve (e.g., privacy, liberty, dignity) in GS II and Ethics papers. |
Gender Justice & Personal Laws | Shah Bano, Shayara Bano, Lily Thomas, NALSA, Navtej Johar | Strengthen answers in GS II (social justice), GS IV (equality, empathy), and essay writing. |
Electoral Reforms & Transparency | ADR Cases, Electoral Bonds, RTI Election Cases | Use in GS II for democratic reforms, transparency, accountability, and electoral funding debates. |
Judicial Activism & Review | Vineet Narain, S.R. Bommai, Prakash Singh | Demonstrate the judiciary's role in good governance and institutional reform. Useful in GS II and Ethics. |
Social Justice & Reservations | Indira Sawhney, Sub-classification Case, NALSA | Use in GS II and Essay to support inclusive governance and affirmative action policies. |
Criminal Justice Reforms | Hussainara Khatoon, Nirbhaya, Om Prakash, Money Laundering Case | Illustrate the need for fair trial, legal aid, reforms in GS II and GS IV (justice, compassion). |
Federalism & State Powers | S.R. Bommai, Lottery Tax Case, Alcohol Regulation Case | Support answers on Centre-State relations in GS II and Polity MCQs in Prelims. |
Environmental & Economic Governance | Steel Authority Case, Economic Regulation Cases | Use in GS III for economy-environment balance and public sector accountability. |
Constitutional Morality & Ethics | Navtej Johar, Shreya Singhal, Puttaswamy | Apply in GS IV ethics questions on justice, empathy, rights-based governance. |
Tip for Aspirants: Quote these landmark judgements of the Supreme court of India as case studies in mains, use keywords like basic structure, judicial review, and always mention the year to show legal awareness.
Q.Why are these landmark judgements of the Supreme court important for UPSC aspirants?
A. UPSC civil services exams emphasize constitutional law, governance, and current affairs. These famous court cases in India illustrate how the Constitution works in practice. They provide examples of judicial reasoning on rights (e.g. equality, liberty), federalism, and reforms. Understanding these helps in General Studies papers and the Interview, demonstrating awareness of India’s legal evolution.
Q. Which landmark judgement of the Supreme court introduced the 'basic structure' doctrine?
A. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) introduced the "basic structure" doctrine, limiting Parliament's ability to amend the Constitution's core principles.
Q. What is the significance of the right to privacy judgement in India for UPSC?
A. The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right, critical for UPSC aspirants covering rights-based governance and digital policy.
Q. What was the significance of the Maneka Gandhi case for UPSC?
A. The Maneka Gandhi case (1978) expanded personal liberty under Article 21, setting the precedent for broader rights interpretation, crucial for UPSC’s Fundamental Rights topics.
Q.How do these landmark judgements of the Supreme court impact law and society?
A. Each case shapes law by defining rights and limits. For example, striking down triple talaq protects women’s equality; upholding privacy limits data collection; limiting arbitrary arrest protects civil liberties. Many also direct Parliament or governments to act (like police reforms). They ensure laws evolve with society, maintaining constitutional values.
These landmark judgements in India illustrate the Supreme Court’s role in interpreting the Constitution and protecting rights. From defining federal balances (e.g. Kesavananda, alcohol taxation) and social justice (reservations, LGBTQ+ rights) to safeguarding liberties (privacy, free speech, fair trial) and democratic integrity (election financing), each case sets enduring precedents. Collectively, they underscore the evolving legal landscape where courts uphold the basic structure, ensure accountability, and adapt law to modern challenges. Aspiring civil servants and informed citizens study these landmark judgements of supreme court for their deep insights into governance, rights, and policy limits.
Internal Linking Suggestions
How to Begin Your UPSC Preparation : The Ultimate Guide For Beginners
UPSC Previous Year Question Papers with Answers PDF - Prelims & Mains (2014-2024)
upsc optional subject list and syllabus-for-cse-exam-2025-complete-guide
How to Prepare Current Affairs for UPSC Exam: A Comprehensive Guide
51st G7 Summit 2025 – Countries, Key Issues, India’s Role & UPSC
External Linking Suggestions
UPSC Official Website – Syllabus & Notification: https://upsc.gov.in/
Press Information Bureau – Government Announcements: https://pib.gov.in/
NCERT Official Website – Standard Books for UPSC: https://ncert.nic.in
UPSC Notification 2025 was released on 22nd January 2025.
UPSC Prelims Question Paper 2025 and Unofficial Prelims Answer Key 2025 are available now.
UPSC Calendar 2026 is released on 15th May, 2025.
The UPSC Vacancy 2025 were released 1129, out of which 979 were for UPSC CSE and remaining 150 are for UPSC IFoS.
UPSC Mains 2025 will be conducted on 22nd August 2025.
UPSC Prelims 2026 will be conducted on 24th May, 2026 & UPSC Mains 2026 will be conducted on 21st August 2026.
The UPSC Selection Process is of 3 stages-Prelims, Mains and Interview.
UPSC Result 2024 is released with latest UPSC Marksheet 2024. Check Now!
UPSC Toppers List 2024 is released now. Shakti Dubey is UPSC AIR 1 2024 Topper.
