India's Most Important
Supreme Court Judgments
In-depth analysis of landmark judgments that shaped Indian law — from the Rarest of Rare doctrine to the abolition of Section 66A. Explained for lawyers, students, and UPSC aspirants.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
AIR 1980 SC 898 | (1980) 2 SCC 684
RAREST OF RARE DOCTRINE: Death should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases — when the alternative option of Life Imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. It is the court's duty to record specific reasons why Life Imprisonment is inadequate.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
(2014) 8 SCC 273
ARREST IS NOT AUTOMATIC: A complaint or FIR under Section 498A / BNS 85 does not automatically justify arrest. Police must independently satisfy themselves that the specific conditions under Section 41 CrPC (BNSS Section 35) are met.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
(2018) 10 SCC 1 | AIR 2018 SC 4321
CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY OVER POPULAR MORALITY: The Court held that constitutional courts must uphold constitutional morality — not popular morality or majoritarianism. A law cannot be saved merely because the majority finds certain conduct morally offensive.
Vishaka & Others v. State of Rajasthan
AIR 1997 SC 3011 | (1997) 6 SCC 241
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS VIOLATION: Sexual harassment at the workplace violates the right to gender equality (Articles 14 & 15), the right to practice any profession (Article 19(1)(g)), and the right to life and dignity (Article 21). It is not merely a criminal or tortious matter — it is a constitutional wrong.
Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors.
(2017) 6 SCC 1
RAREST OF RARE APPLIED: The Court found this was an 'absolute' case within the Rarest of Rare doctrine — extreme brutality, pre-planning, prolonged assault, multiple perpetrators, a defenceless victim, severe injuries causing death, and utter depravity with no provocation. Death was the only just sentence.
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Others v. State of Kerala & Anr.
AIR 1973 SC 1461 | (1973) 4 SCC 225
BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE: Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 does not extend to destroying or abrogating the 'basic structure' or 'essential features' of the Constitution. An amendment that destroys a basic feature is void.
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
AIR 1950 SC 27 | 1950 SCR 88
OVERRULED BY MANEKA GANDHI (1978): A.K. Gopalan's core holdings — that Articles 19, 21, and 22 are mutually exclusive silos, and that 'procedure established by law' means any enacted procedure however arbitrary — were expressly overruled by Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). The current law is the interconnected 'Golden Triangle' doctrine from Maneka Gandhi.
State of Madras v. V.G. Row
AIR 1952 SC 196 | 1952 SCR 597
COURTS DETERMINE REASONABLENESS — NOT PARLIAMENT: The reasonableness of a restriction on a fundamental right under Article 19 is a justiciable question to be determined by courts. The legislature's opinion that a restriction is reasonable is not conclusive — courts will independently examine whether the restriction is in fact reasonable.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain & Anr.
AIR 1975 SC 2299 | (1975) 2 SCC 159
FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS = BASIC STRUCTURE: The right to free and fair elections is a basic feature of the Constitution — Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to immunise elections from judicial scrutiny. Democracy — of which free and fair elections are the cornerstone — is a basic feature of the Constitution.
S.R. Bommai & Others v. Union of India & Others
AIR 1994 SC 1918 | (1994) 3 SCC 1
ARTICLE 356 IS JUSTICIABLE: Presidential proclamation of President's Rule under Article 356 is not immune from judicial review. Courts can examine whether the proclamation was made on: (a) relevant material; (b) in good faith; (c) for a proper constitutional purpose. Mala fide, extraneous-ground, or irrelevant-material proclamations can be struck down.
Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. S.S. Shukla (Shivkant Shukla)
AIR 1976 SC 1207 | (1976) 2 SCC 521
ADM JABALPUR — THE WRONG JUDGMENT THAT MATTERS: ADM Jabalpur was the 4:1 majority decision that held habeas corpus was unavailable during the Emergency — leaving detainees without any judicial remedy against arbitrary detention. It is now universally regarded as the worst judgment in Indian constitutional history.
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras
AIR 1950 SC 124 | (1950) SCR 594
ARTICLE 19(2) GROUNDS ARE EXHAUSTIVE: The grounds in Article 19(2) for restricting free speech are exhaustive — the state cannot create additional grounds not listed in Article 19(2). Any law restricting free speech that cannot be brought within one of the listed heads is unconstitutional.
Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India & Others
AIR 1993 SC 477 | 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
50% CEILING ON RESERVATIONS: Total reservations (SC + ST + OBC) cannot ordinarily exceed 50% of available posts. The 50% ceiling is a constitutional norm derived from Article 16(1) read with 16(4) — exceeding 50% would be unconstitutional except in extraordinary situations (e.g., remote/backward regions).
M. Nagaraj & Others v. Union of India & Others
(2006) 8 SCC 212
THREE NAGARAJ CONDITIONS FOR PROMOTION RESERVATION: Before a State can implement SC/ST reservation in promotions under Article 16(4A), it must demonstrate with quantifiable data: (1) backwardness of the SC/ST class; (2) inadequacy of their representation in the service; and (3) that administrative efficiency (Article 335) will be maintained. All three must be proved — not assumed.
Jarnail Singh & Others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others
(2018) 10 SCC 396
QUANTIFIABLE BACKWARDNESS DATA NOT REQUIRED FOR SC/ST: SC/ST communities are listed in the Presidential lists under Articles 341 and 342 — they are constitutionally deemed backward. A State need not separately collect data to 'prove' they are backward before extending promotion reservation. Nagaraj's backwardness data condition is thus modified/removed.
Janhit Abhiyan & Others v. Union of India & Others
(2022) 13 SCC 1
EWS RESERVATION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID (3:2 MAJORITY): The 10% EWS reservation enabled by the 103rd Amendment does not violate the basic structure. The Constitution's commitment to social and economic justice includes ensuring opportunities for economically weaker sections of the forward communities.
Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India & Another
(2018) 5 SCC 1
RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY — ARTICLE 21: The right to die with dignity is an integral and inseparable part of the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21. Forcing a terminally ill person in a persistent vegetative state to continue on artificial life support against their expressed or presumed wishes violates their constitutional right to a dignified death.
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India & Others
(2014) 5 SCC 438
THIRD GENDER — CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION: NALSA (2014) established that transgender persons have a constitutional right to recognition as a 'third gender' in all official documents including passports, ration cards, and identity documents. Binary male/female categories cannot be exclusively mandated by law.
Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. Naz Foundation & Others
(2014) 1 SCC 1
OVERRULED BY NAVTEJ JOHAR (2018): Koushal was expressly and unanimously overruled by the five-judge Constitution Bench in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018). Every proposition in Koushal — from the 'minuscule minority' reasoning to the deference to Parliament — was rejected.
Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others
160 Delhi Law Times 277 | WP(C) No. 7455 of 2001
CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY OVER POPULAR MORALITY: The Delhi HC's most enduring contribution — the principle that constitutional courts enforce constitutional morality, not popular morality or majoritarianism. A law cannot be upheld merely because the majority finds certain conduct morally offensive. This principle was adopted and expanded by the Navtej Johar Constitution Bench (2018).
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
(2024) 5 SCC 1
NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY (MAJORITY): The majority held that the Indian Constitution does not contain an explicit or implied fundamental right to marry. Marriage is a statutory institution regulated by legislation — the Court cannot create a new constitutional right to marry by judicial interpretation.
I.C. Golaknath & Others v. State of Punjab & Anr.
AIR 1967 SC 1643 | (1967) 2 SCR 762
PARLIAMENT CANNOT AMEND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (OVERRULED): Golaknath held that Parliament's power under Article 368 is limited to procedural amendment — not the substantive power to abridge fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are immutable and beyond Parliament's reach. This was subsequently overruled by Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Others v. Union of India & Others
AIR 1980 SC 1789 | (1980) 3 SCC 625
BALANCE BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES IS BASIC STRUCTURE: The harmony and balance between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) is a basic feature of the Constitution. Parliament cannot give Directive Principles absolute supremacy over all fundamental rights — this would destroy the constitutional balance.
I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others
(2007) 2 SCC 1
POST-1973 NINTH SCHEDULE LAWS SUBJECT TO BASIC STRUCTURE REVIEW: Laws added to the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are not immune from judicial review. If they violate fundamental rights that form part of the basic structure, they can be invalidated. The Ninth Schedule cannot be used to protect laws that destroy the basic structure.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu & Others
AIR 1993 SC 412 | (1992) Supp (2) SCC 651
ANTI-DEFECTION LAW IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID: The Tenth Schedule and the anti-defection provisions are a reasonable regulatory scheme for ensuring political stability and preventing unprincipled defections. They do not violate any fundamental right or constitutional provision.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
AIR 1994 SC 1918 | (1994) 3 SCC 1
FLOOR TEST IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL METHOD: The floor of the House — not the Governor's subjective opinion — is the constitutionally mandated method for testing whether a government commands majority support. A Chief Minister must be given an opportunity to prove majority on the floor before the Governor recommends President's Rule.
Waman Rao & Others v. Union of India & Others
AIR 1981 SC 271 | (1981) 2 SCC 362
PRE-KESAVANANDA NINTH SCHEDULE LAWS — IMMUNISED: Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule up to April 24, 1973 (the date of Kesavananda Bharati) enjoy full protection under Article 31B and are not subject to challenge under Fundamental Rights.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
(2015) 5 SCC 1 | AIR 2015 SC 1523
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra
AIR 1962 SC 605 | (1962) Suppl 1 SCR 567
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
AIR 1978 SC 597 | (1978) 1 SCC 248
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar
AIR 1962 SC 955 | (1962) Suppl 2 SCR 769
S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India
W.P. (Crl.) No. 117 of 2021 — Order dated 11 May 2022 | (2022) SCC OnLine SC 565
Machhi Singh & Others v. State of Punjab
AIR 1983 SC 957 | (1983) 3 SCC 470
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra
(2012) 2 SCC 648
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Others
AIR 1996 SC 1393 | (1996) 2 SCC 384
Tukaram & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
AIR 1979 SC 185 | (1979) 2 SCC 143
Independent Thought v. Union of India
(2017) 10 SCC 800
Dilip v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2001) 9 SCC 452
R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam
(2019) 16 SCC 739
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd. & Others
(2006) 6 SCC 736
Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
(2010) 7 SCC 667
Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. (modified by Social Action Forum v. Union of India)
(2017) 6 SCC 680 | Modified by (2018) 10 SCC 443
Satvir Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Anr.
(2001) 8 SCC 633
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr.
(2005) 6 SCC 1
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law
(2016) 7 SCC 221
Balwant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab
(1995) 3 SCC 214
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
AIR 1957 SC 620 | 1957 SCR 860
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
(2014) 9 SCC 129
Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kanchan Mehta
(2018) 1 SCC 560
MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan & Anr.
(2013) 1 SCC 177
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India & Others
(2014) 5 SCC 438
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
(2018) 2 SCC 189 (later full judgment 2019)
Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Others
(2017) 9 SCC 1
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Others
(2017) 10 SCC 1
Olga Tellis & Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Others
AIR 1986 SC 180 | (1985) 3 SCC 545
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India & Others
(2011) 4 SCC 454
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh & Others
(2014) 2 SCC 1
State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others
AIR 1992 SC 604 | 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra
(2002) 6 SCC 710
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
AIR 1984 SC 1622 | (1984) 4 SCC 116
Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India & Others
AIR 1993 SC 477 | 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla
AIR 1976 SC 1207 | (1976) 2 SCC 521
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras
AIR 1950 SC 124 | 1950 SCR 594
Prakash Singh & Others v. Union of India & Others
(2006) 8 SCC 1
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum & Others
AIR 1985 SC 945 | (1985) 2 SCC 556
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Others
(2004) 4 SCC 158
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2010) 6 SCC 1
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Swarup
AIR 1974 SC 1570 | (1974) 4 SCC 764
K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr.
(1992) 1 SCC 217
Piara Singh & Others v. State of Punjab
AIR 1977 SC 2274 | (1977) 4 SCC 452
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others
(2002) 8 SCC 481
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Others
(2018) 16 SCC 368
Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
(1997) 4 SCC 161
Mohd. Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra
(2012) 9 SCC 1
Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India & Anr.
(2018) 5 SCC 1
Joseph Shine v. Union of India
(2019) 3 SCC 39 | AIR 2018 SC 4898
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Others
(2018) 16 SCC 368
Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Others
(2017) 9 SCC 1
Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Others
(2020) 7 SCC 469
In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution of India
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1647
Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
(1997) 4 SCC 161
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Others
(2014) 2 SCC 1
Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
(2008) 2 SCC 409
Prakash Singh & Others v. Union of India & Others
(2006) 8 SCC 1
State of Haryana & Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 | AIR 1992 SC 604
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Others
(2006) 3 SCC 374
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2010) 6 SCC 1
Rustom Cawasjee Cooper v. Union of India
AIR 1970 SC 564 | (1970) 3 SCC 530
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others
(2002) 8 SCC 481
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab
AIR 1958 SC 465 | 1958 SCR 1495
Jai Dev v. State of Punjab
AIR 1963 SC 612 | (1963) 3 SCR 489
Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(2006) 11 SCC 444
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India & Others
(2020) 3 SCC 637
Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty
AIR 1996 SC 922 | (1996) 1 SCC 490
Aparna Bhat & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
(2021) 18 SCC 191
X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
(2023) 1 SCC 289
National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
(2019) 5 SCC 1
Parmananda Pegu v. State of Assam
(2004) 7 SCC 779
Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam
(2011) 3 SCC 377
People's Union for Civil Liberties & Another v. Union of India & Another
(2004) 9 SCC 580
Laxmi v. Union of India & Others
(2014) 4 SCC 427
Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay
AIR 1958 SC 22 | 1958 SCR 552
Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor
AIR 1939 PC 47 | (1939) 66 IA 66
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra
(2009) 6 SCC 498
Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
(2014) 3 SCC 1
Vineet Narain & Others v. Union of India & Anr.
AIR 1998 SC 889 | (1998) 1 SCC 226
State of Bihar & Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanha & Ors.
AIR 1980 SC 326 | (1980) 1 SCC 554
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Others
AIR 1981 SC 746 | (1981) 1 SCC 608
State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav & Others
AIR 1985 SC 416 | (1985) 1 SCC 552
Har Prasad v. State of U.P.
(2008) 13 SCC 182
Sharda v. Dharmpal
AIR 2003 SC 3450 | (2003) 4 SCC 493
Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. & Another
(2019) 8 SCC 1
Selvi & Others v. State of Karnataka & Another
AIR 2010 SC 1974 | (2010) 7 SCC 263
Libnus v. State of Maharashtra
(2021) 2 SCC 180
Attorney General for India v. Satish & Another
(2021) 5 SCC 438
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
AIR 2001 SC 3837 | (2001) 9 SCC 618
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
(2009) 16 SCC 605
Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan
(2021) 19 SCC 144
Mohd. Hoshan @ Abu Islam v. State of Andhra Pradesh
AIR 2002 SC 3270 | (2002) 7 SCC 414
Pappu v. State of U.P.
(2022) 10 SCC 1
Nipun Saxena v. Union of India
(2019) 2 SCC 703
Satish Narayan Sawant v. State of Goa
(2009) 13 SCC 610
State of Rajasthan v. N.K. (Minor)
AIR 2000 SC 2212 | (2000) 5 SCC 30
Manish Kumar v. Union of India
(2021) 5 SCC 1
Reena Banerjee v. NCT of Delhi
(2021) 14 SCC 401
Olga Tellis & Others v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Others
AIR 1986 SC 180 | (1985) 3 SCC 545
Iqbal Singh Marwah & Another v. Meenakshi Marwah & Another
AIR 2005 SC 2119 | (2005) 4 SCC 370
V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat
AIR 1994 SC 710 | (1994) 1 SCC 337
Arnav Bose v. Nilima Bose & Others
(2021) SC — Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act; Shared Household
Hira Lal & Others v. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2003) 8 SCC 80
Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra
AIR 2002 SC 2078 | (2002) 5 SCC 177
B.S. Joshi & Others v. State of Haryana & Another
AIR 2003 SC 1386 | (2003) 4 SCC 675
Hiral P. Harsora & Others v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora & Others
(2016) 10 SCC 165
S. Khushboo v. Kanniamal & Another
AIR 2010 SC 3196 | (2010) 5 SCC 600
P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE)
AIR 1998 SC 2120 | (1998) 4 SCC 626
Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh & Another
(2012) 3 SCC 64
CBI v. Dinesh Kumar Shukla & Others
(2023) Supreme Court — PC Act Amendment 2018
Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra
(2013) 5 SCC 546
Dhananjoy Chatterjee Alias Dhana v. State of West Bengal
(2004) 9 SCC 751
Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State of NCT of Delhi
(2013) 6 SCC 195
RIT Foundation & Others v. Union of India & Others
(2022) Delhi High Court — Split Bench Judgment
Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai v. State of Gujarat
(2018) Gujarat High Court — Criminal Appeal
Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI & Another
(2001) 7 SCC 536
K. Veeraswami v. Union of India & Others
AIR 1991 SC 2261 | (1991) 3 SCC 655
Union of India v. W.N. Chadha
AIR 1993 SC 1 | (1993) Supp. (4) SCC 260
Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Others
(2012) 2 SCC 688
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
AIR 1997 SC 610 | (1997) 1 SCC 416
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. & Others
(1994) 4 SCC 260
Hussainara Khatoon & Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar
AIR 1979 SC 1360 | (1980) 1 SCC 81
Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation
(2012) 1 SCC 40
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay
AIR 1977 SC 2447 | (1977) 4 SCC 308
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Others
(2014) 10 SCC 473
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Others
(2020) 7 SCC 1
Tomaso Bruno & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2015) 7 SCC 178
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani & Anr.
AIR 1978 SC 1025 | (1978) 2 SCC 424
Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India
(2018) 17 SCC 291
State of Maharashtra v. Madhkar Narayan Mardikar
AIR 1991 SC 207 | (1991) 1 SCC 57
Union of India v. Mohanlal & Anr.
(2016) 3 SCC 379
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2021) 4 SCC 1
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Others v. Union of India & Others
(2022) 11 SCC 1
Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India
(2018) 11 SCC 1
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Others
(2020) 9 SCC 1
Prakash & Others v. Phulvati & Others
(2016) 2 SCC 36
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab
(2010) 2 SCC 333
Kehar Singh & Others v. State (Delhi Administration)
AIR 1988 SC 1883 | (1988) 3 SCC 609
State of West Bengal v. Mohd. Khalid & Others
(1995) 1 SCC 684
State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil & Others
AIR 1983 SC 305 | (1983) 2 SCC 28
State of Maharashtra & Others v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah & Others
(2008) 13 SCC 5
In Re: Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During Pandemic
SMW (C) No. 3 of 2021 | (2021) SCC OnLine SC 455
P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam & Anr.
AIR 1980 SC 856 | (1980) 3 SCC 141
Excel Wear & Others v. Union of India & Others
AIR 1979 SC 25 | (1978) 4 SCC 224
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others v. State of Punjab
AIR 1980 SC 1632 | (1980) 2 SCC 565
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another
(2022) 10 SCC 51
P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation
(2019) 9 SCC 24
Sudha Singh v. State of U.P. & Others
(2020) 17 SCC 627
Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)
(2023) 6 SCC 625
State of Kerala v. Raneef
(2011) 1 SCC 784
Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India
(2021) 17 SCC 756
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (Pegasus Surveillance)
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 314 of 2021 — (2022) Supreme Court
Amish Devgan v. Union of India & Others
(2021) 1 SCC 1
Patna Sahib Sikh Sangat v. Union of India
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1640
Reshma v. Vijay & Another
(2020) 19 SCC 375
Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar
(2019) 4 SCC 197
Sil Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore & Another
AIR 1999 SC 1609 | (1999) 4 SCC 567
Rajneesh Aggarwal v. Amit Jain & Another
AIR 2003 SC 3158 | (2003) 8 SCC 492
KSL and Industries Ltd. v. Arihant Threads Ltd. & Others
(2015) 1 SCC 166
Prajwala v. Union of India & Others
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 56 of 2004 — Supreme Court
Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of J&K & Others
(2020) 16 SCC 414
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India — Privacy and Sexual Orientation
(2017) 10 SCC 1 — Chandrachud J. (concurrence on sexual orientation)
Zulfikar Nasier v. State of U.P.
(2023) Supreme Court — Transitional Provision; BNS Applicability