Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala

The doctrine of the basic structure was first introduced in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment of the Indian Supreme Court[1]. This doctrine is a common law legal principle that maintains that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature[2]. The concept is recognized not only in India but also in countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda[3]. The development of the basic structure doctrine was a result of a series of constitutional law cases in the Indian Supreme Court, with the Kesavananda Bharati case being its most prominent example[4].

In Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala, the majority judgment invoked the concept of implied limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution[5]. The court held that the Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is not unlimited and that it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution[6]. This landmark decision established that the Parliament can only amend the constitution, not rewrite it, as the power to amend is not a power to destroy[2]. This ruling laid down the "basic structure" doctrine, setting limits on Parliament's capacity to modify the Constitution[7].

As a result of the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, the protection of fundamental rights in India was significantly strengthened. The Supreme Court has since ruled on several landmark cases that have expanded the scope of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. For example, in the Right to Privacy case (2017), the Supreme Court declared the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right protected under the Indian Constitution[8]. In another decision, the Court repealed Section 377 (2018), which criminalized consensual same-sex relations, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and individual rights[9]. These cases, along with numerous others, have demonstrated the enduring impact of the basic structure doctrine in safeguarding the fundamental rights of Indian citizens and upholding the principles enshrined in the Constitution[10].

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India

The landmark case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India marked a turning point in the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the right to life and personal liberty [11]. Prior to this case, the scope of Article 21 was limited, as evidenced by the Gopalan decision [12]. However, the Maneka Gandhi case led the Supreme Court to reverse its earlier stance and adopt a broader interpretation of Article 21 [13]. This expansion of Article 21 had far-reaching implications for the Indian judiciary, as it paved the way for the recognition of various other rights under the umbrella of the right to life and personal liberty [14].

Another significant aspect of the Maneka Gandhi case was its establishment of the inter-linkage of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution [11]. Before this judgement, fundamental rights were considered to be independent and distinct from one another. However, the Supreme Court's decision in the Maneka Gandhi case highlighted the interconnected nature of these rights, emphasizing that the violation of one right could potentially lead to the infringement of others. This inter-linkage of fundamental rights has since been reaffirmed in several landmark judgements, such as the Right to Privacy case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India, where the Court acknowledged that the right to privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty, and consequently falls under Article 21 [15].

The Maneka Gandhi case also laid the foundation for a more reasonable procedure for imposing restrictions on fundamental rights [9]. Prior to this judgement, the government could impose restrictions on the grounds of public order, which often led to excessive curtailment of people's rights. However, the Supreme Court's ruling in the Maneka Gandhi case clarified that restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved, thereby setting a higher standard for the government to justify its actions [16]. This principle has since been applied in numerous other cases, ensuring that the protection of fundamental rights remains at the forefront of the Indian judiciary's considerations.

Shah Bano Case (Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum)

The Shah Bano case is a landmark judgement in India that brought attention to the issue of maintenance for Muslim women under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)[17]. Shah Bano, a Muslim woman, claimed maintenance from her husband after their divorce[18]. The case reached the Supreme Court, where Justice Chandrachud upheld the decision of the High Court that granted maintenance to Shah Bano under CrPC[19]. This decision was significant because it acknowledged the right of divorced Muslim women to seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, emphasizing their right to financial support[20].

The Shah Bano case also highlighted the need for gender justice and secularism in the Indian judiciary. This judgement was seen as a significant step towards promoting gender justice, as it recognized the rights of divorced Muslim women to claim maintenance[21]. Additionally, the case emphasized the importance of secularism, as the court held that the "artificial distinction between married and single women is not constitutionally sustainable"[22]. This landmark judgement set a precedent for future cases involving the rights of women in India, contributing to a more equitable legal landscape[23].

The impact of the Shah Bano case extended beyond the courtroom and led to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act in 1986[24]. This Act provided separate laws for maintenance in respect of divorced Muslim women, ultimately exempting them from the maintenance rights granted under Section 125 of CrPC[25]. However, the legacy of the Shah Bano case continued to influence legal developments in India, as evidenced by the 2010 case of Imran Khan, which held that a Muslim woman could still seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and was not limited to the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act[26]. Furthermore, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, passed in 2019, criminalized instant divorce and further safeguarded the rights of Muslim women[27]. The Shah Bano case remains a pivotal moment in the Indian judiciary's journey towards gender justice and secularism[19].

Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan

The landmark Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan case marked a significant turning point in the Indian judiciary's approach to addressing sexual harassment at the workplace[28]. In this case, the Supreme Court issued essential guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment that later came to be known as the Vishakha Guidelines[29]. These guidelines laid the foundation for the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, which holds employers responsible for ensuring the safety of all employees[30]. The establishment of the Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC) further contributed to raising awareness about gender issues and addressing sexual harassment complaints within the Supreme Court precinct[31]. Some key features of the Vishakha Guidelines include: - The definition of sexual harassment as a criminal offence - The creation of a safe work environment for women - The establishment of an internal complaints committee in every organization - Employer responsibility for providing a secure and harassment-free workplace

Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan also stands as a testament to the power of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India. The case of Bhanwari Devi, who sought to prevent the marriage of a one-year-old girl in rural Rajasthan as part of a government program, was brought to the Supreme Court through a PIL[32]. This case is one of the most widely spoken of PILs in India, alongside other landmark cases such as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, and Vishal Jeet v[33]. Public Interest Litigation has played a crucial role in bringing attention to significant social issues and providing a platform for marginalized groups to seek justice. Some notable PIL cases have led to: - The recognition of the right to a healthy environment - The fight against bonded labor - The protection of women and children from exploitation

In addition to establishing guidelines for preventing sexual harassment, the Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan case reinforced the recognition of gender equality as a fundamental right in India[34]. The Supreme Court's reliance on gender equality principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has contributed to subsequent landmark judgments. For instance, the Supreme Court's decision to recognize transgender individuals as a third gender and grant them the same fundamental rights as other citizens[35], and the ruling that unmarried women have the same right to abortion as married women[36]. These landmark judgments demonstrate the Indian judiciary's commitment to upholding gender equality and ensuring the protection of all citizens' rights, regardless of their gender identity or marital status.

Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India

The landmark judgment in Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India marked a significant turning point in the Indian judiciary, as it led to the decriminalization of homosexuality[37]. This historic decision by the Supreme Court of India overturned a colonial-era law that criminalized consensual gay sex[37]. In its ruling, the court not only decriminalized same-sex relations but recognized them as part of the natural human order[38]. This bold move was a major step forward in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights in India, as it acknowledged the dignity and equality of all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation.

A critical aspect of this landmark judgment was its examination of the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)[39]. Prior to the Navtej Singh Johar case, Section 377 had remained in place for over 150 years, criminalizing "unnatural" sexual acts, which included consensual same-sex relations[40]. In a unanimous verdict, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court partially struck down Section 377, effectively decriminalizing homosexuality[39]. The court's decision to strike down this outdated and discriminatory law was a monumental victory for human rights and social justice in India.

A crucial element of the Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India case was the recognition of the right to privacy and dignity for all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation[41]. The Supreme Court's nine-judge bench unanimously declared that the right to individual privacy is an "intrinsic" and fundamental aspect of human dignity[42]. This decision was based on the understanding that privacy is a constitutionally protected right in India, intrinsic to human dignity and liberty[43]. By acknowledging the importance of privacy and dignity in the context of LGBTQ+ rights, the court effectively dismantled the legal barriers that had long marginalized and oppressed India's LGBTQ+ community, paving the way for a more inclusive and egalitarian society.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India

In a milestone ruling, India's Supreme Court declared that privacy is a fundamental right for each of its 1.3 billion citizens, effectively changing the Indian Judiciary's approach to privacy matters[42]. This landmark unanimous ruling was made in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India, where the right to individual privacy was deemed "intrinsic" and fundamental[41]. The ruling was groundbreaking, as it clarified that although the right to privacy was not expressly recognized as a fundamental right, it was implicitly guaranteed under the Indian Constitution[43]. This decision countered the arguments made by lawyers representing the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who maintained that the Indian constitution did not recognize a fundamental right to privacy[44].

The judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India had a significant impact on the Aadhaar project, a government initiative that mandates every resident in India to obtain a unique ID number and involves the sharing of biometric data[45]. The Indian Supreme Court, by a 4 to 1 majority, upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar project after some minor modifications[46]. These changes may affect the government of India's efforts at maintaining a centralized database of personal information known as Aadhaar[47]. Nandan Nilekani, who previously led the department responsible for Aadhaar, said the Supreme Court had made "a landmark judgement in favor" of the project[48].

In the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India case, the Indian Supreme Court had the challenging task of balancing individual rights with state interests. The Court opined that the right to privacy is directly infringed whenever the state or any external agency surveils or spies on an individual, and this trade-off between privacy and state interests must be carefully considered[49]. The concept of judicial review plays a significant role in upholding the principles of democracy, ensuring the rule of law, and safeguarding individual rights from excessive state intrusion[50]. As a result, the landmark decision has set a binding precedent within its jurisdiction, paving the way for future cases concerning the balance of individual rights and state interests[51].

Triple Talaq Case (Shayara Bano vs Union of India)

The landmark judgment in the case of Shayara Bano vs Union of India, led to the abolition of instant triple talaq in India [52]. Instant triple talaq, as practiced in India, allowed Muslim men to unilaterally divorce their wives by merely uttering the word "talaq" three times [53]. The Supreme Court, in a majority ruling, declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional and un-Islamic, urging Parliament to set aside political differences and amend the law to protect the rights of Muslim women [54]. This decision was a significant step towards ensuring gender equality within the Indian legal system.

The protection of Muslim women's rights was a central focus of the judgment in Shayara Bano vs Union of India [55]. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for gender equality and the protection of women's rights under Muslim Personal Laws, laying the groundwork for Muslim women's fight for equal rights in matters of marriage and divorce in regular courts [19]. This historic ruling marked a turning point in the legal landscape for Indian Muslim women, who had long suffered due to discriminatory practices embedded in their personal laws.

Another critical aspect of the Shayara Bano case was the examination of the constitutional validity of personal laws [56]. The judgment highlighted the role of protective discrimination laws and measures within the framework of the Indian democracy [57]. The court maintained that personal laws must be consistent with fundamental rights and, if found inconsistent, should be struck down or amended to align with the Constitution [58]. This decision reinforced the idea that personal laws cannot operate in isolation from the Constitution and that they must ultimately adhere to its principles to maintain the rule of law in India.

Sabarimala Temple Case (Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala)

The Sabarimala Temple case, Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala, ignited a significant debate on the balance between the right to worship and gender equality in India [52]. This landmark case highlighted the practice of barring women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala Temple as unconstitutional, paving the way for greater scrutiny of discriminatory practices in religious institutions [59]. In its judgment, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of upholding gender equality and women's right to worship, setting a precedent for future cases that may challenge such restrictions [60].

Restrictions on women's entry in religious places have long been a source of controversy and debate in India [61]. The Sabarimala Temple case, in particular, drew attention to the discriminatory nature of these restrictions, as it involved a ban on women aged between 10 and 50 from entering the temple [62]. The Supreme Court's decision to strike down this ban was a significant step towards addressing gender-based discrimination in religious settings, and reinforced the notion that all individuals should be able to exercise their right to worship without being subjected to arbitrary and discriminatory rules [63].

Balancing traditional practices with constitutional rights is a complex task for the Indian judiciary, as demonstrated by the Sabarimala Temple case [52]. The Supreme Court's decision in this case highlighted the need to protect individual rights, particularly those of women, while also recognizing and respecting the cultural and religious practices that have shaped Indian society [64]. This balance was achieved by carefully examining the doctrine of 'essential practices', which helps determine whether a specific religious practice is integral to the faith and thus protected under the constitution [65]. Through this process, the court was able to strike down the discriminatory ban on women's entry into the temple, reaffirming the importance of upholding constitutional rights and promoting gender equality in India [10].

Ayodhya Dispute Case (M Siddiq vs Mahant Suresh Das)

The landmark judgment on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in India was delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of M Siddiq vs Mahant Suresh Das[66]. The decision was based on the unanimous agreement of the five Supreme Court judges, who recognized the Hindu claim that the disputed site in Ayodhya was the birthplace of the god Ram[67]. This historic judgment marked a significant change in the Indian judiciary, as it addressed a long-standing religious conflict and set a precedent for future cases involving similarly contentious issues[9].

The Ayodhya Dispute Case involved a title suit and constitutional principles that were evaluated by the Supreme Court to arrive at their decision[68]. The court ordered the disputed 2.77-acre land to be handed over to a trust, which would be created by the government of India, for the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple[68]. Additionally, Muslims were granted an alternate piece of land to build a mosque, ensuring that both religious communities were accommodated[69]. This case exemplified the Indian judiciary's commitment to upholding the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and individual autonomy in one's relationship with God[70].

One of the primary objectives of the Ayodhya Dispute Case judgment was the promotion of peace and harmony between the Hindu and Muslim communities in India[71]. By providing a resolution to a long-standing religious conflict, the Supreme Court aimed to foster an environment of mutual respect and understanding. The landmark verdict was a testament to the Indian judiciary's role in facilitating social change and addressing public interest litigation[45]. As a result, the Ayodhya Dispute Case stands as an example of the power of the judiciary in shaping the socio-political landscape and promoting peace and harmony in a diverse and pluralistic nation.

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case (Supreme Court Advocateson-Record Association vs Union of India)

The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of any democratic system, and it plays a crucial role in ensuring that the rights and liberties of citizens are protected. In India, the independence of the judiciary has been upheld in numerous landmark judgments, such as the Animal Welfare Board of India v Union of India case[72]. Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has emphasized the importance of this independence, stating that it relies on the freedom of each individual within the judicial system[73]. A key aspect of maintaining judicial independence in India is the system by which judges are appointed to the nation's constitutional courts.

The collegium system of judicial appointments in India has its genesis in the three famous judges cases, which changed the dimension of judicial appointments in the country[74]. Prior to the establishment of the collegium system, Article 124 and Article 217 of India's Constitution dealt with the appointment of judges, but made no mention of a specific system for making these appointments[75]. In 1993, the Supreme Court created the collegium system, whereby the Chief Justice of India and senior judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts would collaborate to select and appoint judges to the nation's constitutional courts[76]. This system has been criticized for its lack of transparency and accountability, leading to calls for reform and the proposal of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).

The constitutional validity of the NJAC Act was a matter of significant debate and contention, as it sought to replace the collegium system with a new mechanism for judicial appointments[77]. In 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the NJAC Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment, which provided for the establishment of the National Judicial Appointments Commission[78]. The Court, in a majority decision, struck down the amendment as unconstitutional, finding it to be ultra vires the basic structure of the Indian Constitution[79]. This landmark judgment highlighted the importance of preserving the independence of the judiciary and the role of the collegium system in ensuring that this independence is maintained.

Faqs

Q: What is the Basic Structure Doctrine established by the Kesavananda Bharati case, and why is it significant? 

A: The Basic Structure Doctrine is a judicial principle that emerged from the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala in

Q: How did the Maneka Gandhi case expand the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution? 

A: The Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India case in 1978 expanded the interpretation of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Prior to this case, the right to life was interpreted narrowly. The Supreme Court broadened the meaning to include various aspects of life that make it worth living, effectively ruling that any law that prescribes a procedure for depriving a person of their life or personal liberty must also be just, fair, and reasonable. This case linked Article 21 with other fundamental rights, thus establishing that the right to life encompasses a wide range of rights including the right to travel abroad, dignity, education, health, and more, thereby significantly enhancing the scope of personal freedoms in India.

Q: What was the impact of the Shah Bano Case on Muslim women's rights and Indian secularism? 

A: The Shah Bano Case (Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum) in 1985 was a significant legal milestone in India concerning the maintenance rights of Muslim women. The Supreme Court ruled that Shah Bano, a divorced Muslim woman, was entitled to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which applies to all Indian women regardless of religion. The judgment highlighted the need for gender justice and the secular application of law. However, the judgment led to controversy and debates on the intersection of religion and personal laws in India, ultimately resulting in the government passing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which limited the right of Muslim women to seek maintenance after divorce. The case remains a landmark for its impact on the discourse surrounding secularism, gender justice, and personal laws in India.

Q: What are the Vishaka Guidelines, and how did they contribute to gender equality in India? 

A: The Vishaka Guidelines emerged from the case of Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan in 1997, where the Supreme Court acknowledged the absence of legislation addressing sexual harassment at the workplace. The Court laid down a set of procedural guidelines for employers to follow, aiming to prevent and address sexual harassment of women at work. These guidelines included the definition of sexual harassment, the responsibilities of employers to prevent such incidents, and the setup of complaint mechanisms within organizations. The Vishaka Guidelines were significant as they recognized gender equality as a fundamental right under the Constitution and provided a basis for a safer and more empowering work environment for women. These guidelines were later codified into law with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,

Q: What was the decision in the Navtej Singh Johar case, and how did it affect the LGBTQ+ community in India? 

A: The Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India case in 2018 marked a historic moment for the LGBTQ+ community in India. The Supreme Court decriminalized homosexuality by striking down parts of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that criminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults in private. The Court held that these provisions violated the fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, human dignity, and privacy. The decision was celebrated as a victory for human rights and personal freedom, and it has significantly contributed to the destigmatization of homosexuality in Indian society. It also paved the way for further discussions on LGBTQ+ rights, including same-sex marriage, anti-discrimination laws, and other related civil rights.

The Indian judiciary has witnessed several landmark judgments that have changed the course of the country's legal history. These judgments have strengthened the constitutional fabric of the country and protected the fundamental rights of its citizens. From the Kesavananda Bharati case that introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine to the recent Sabarimala Temple case that upheld the right to worship and gender equality, each judgment has played a crucial role in shaping the Indian legal system. These judgments have also highlighted the importance of balancing traditional practices with constitutional rights and promoting peace and harmony. The Indian judiciary's commitment to upholding the constitution and protecting the rights of its citizens is a testament to its independence and integrity.

References

1. India's Basic Structure Doctrine: Past, Present, and Future. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from revdem.ceu.edu/2023/07/12/indias-basic-structure-doctrine/
2. Basic Structure Doctrine of the Indian Constitution. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from byjus.com
3. Basic structure doctrine. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_structure_doctrine
4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesavananda_Bharati_v._State_of_Kerala
5. The Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from constitutionnet.org
6. Conclusion. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from judgments.ecourts.gov.in/KBJ/?p=home/conclusion
7. 50 years of Kesavananda Bharati case and its legacy. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from indianexpress.com
8. 25 Important Supreme Court Judgements for UPSC. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from byjus.com
9. List of landmark court decisions in India. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from en.wikipedia.org
10. Judicial Review In India: Importance, Landmark Cases .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.centurylawfirm.in/blog/judicial-review-in-india/
11. EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 21 BY THE .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from theamikusqriae.com
12. Mapping the Role of the Judiciary in Upholding .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.lexology.com
13. Important Judgements on Article 21 of the Constitution .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.linkedin.com
14. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Right to Life & Personal .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.centurylawfirm.in
15. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution : Right to Life and .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from blog.ipleaders.in/article-21/
16. Important Judgements of Independent India. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.drishtiias.com
17. Divorced Muslim women's right to maintenance | CrPC .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from indianexpress.com
18. Shah Bano case. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from blog.ipleaders.in/shah-bano-case/
19. What is Shah Bano case? | What Is News. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from indianexpress.com
20. Supreme Court Reserves Judgment on Divorced Muslim .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.livelaw.in
21. Gender Justice through Public Interest Litigation. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu
22. 5 times the Supreme Court upheld the rights of women in .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from indianexpress.com
23. 8 landmark judgements that changed the course for .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from yourstory.com
24. ASSESSING CONTRIBUTION OF INDIAN JUDICIARY FOR .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.aequivic.in
25. Triple Divorce and the Political Context of Islamic Law in .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from journalofislamiclaw.com/current/article/view/siddiqui
26. Section 125 CrPC - Scope, Revision Landmark Judgments .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.ilms.academy
27. Of Marriage, Divorce and Criminalisation in. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/jla/6/1/jla060103.xml
28. LANDMARK JUDGMENTS ON SEXUAL HARASSEMENT AT .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from knowledgesteez.wordpress.com
29. 5 Landmark Cases of Public Interest Litigation. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from knowledgesteez.wordpress.com
30. Honourable Supreme Court of India landmark judgment on .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.linkedin.com
31. Workplace Sexual Harassment Law for India's Judiciary. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from nyaaya.org
32. What is the examples of PIL in India? - Vakilsearch | Blog. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from vakilsearch.com/blog/examples-pil-india/
33. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India | Best Lawyer for PIL. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.centurylawfirm.in/blog/public-interest-litigation-pil/
34. Women and Justice: Court: Supreme Court of India. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.law.cornell.edu
35. India's Transgender Rights Law Isn't Worth Celebrating. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.hrw.org
36. Supreme Court of India judgement on abortion as a .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10321178/
37. India Decriminalizes Homosexuality in a Landmark Ruling. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from time.com
38. History's Apology: Sexuality and the 377 Supreme Court .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from epicenter.wcfia.harvard.edu
39. Supreme Court of India reads down colonial-era Section 377. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from oneill.law.georgetown.edu
40. Supreme Court decriminalises Section 377: All you need to .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from timesofindia.indiatimes.com
41. India's Supreme Court Upholds Right to Privacy. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.hrw.org
42. Indian Supreme Court Declares Privacy A Fundamental Right. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.npr.org
43. India's Supreme Court Upholds Right to Privacy as a .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.eff.org
44. India Supreme Court rules privacy a 'fundamental right' in .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.cnn.com
45. India's Supreme Court is making landmark judgements in .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.openglobalrights.org
46. The Indian Supreme Court's Aadhaar judgment. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from iapp.org
47. The Implications of India's Right to Privacy Decision. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.cfr.org/blog/implications-indias-right-privacy-decision
48. What to Know About Aadhaar, India's Biometric Identity .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from time.com/5409604/india-aadhaar-supreme-court/
49. Manohar v. Union of India - Global Freedom of Expression. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu
50. Judicial Review Cases in India: Safeguarding .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.linkedin.com
51. Bhasin v. Union of India - Global Freedom of Expression. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu
52. Landmark judgments protecting women's rights. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from oneindiaonepeople.com
53. India's Supreme Court Suspends Muslim Practice of Instant .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.voanews.com
54. Instant triple talaq: Supreme Court verdict is a landmark for .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.hindustantimes.com
55. Top Ten Landmark Cases on Muslim Law in India. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from legalstixlawschool.com
56. 1985: Shah Bano case - Frontline - The Hindu. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from frontline.thehindu.com
57. Jurisprudence - Supreme Court Cases - India. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/india-jurisprudence.html
58. Scope of personal laws under Part III of the Indian .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from blog.ipleaders.in
59. Sabarimala Temple Entry. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.scobserver.in
60. India's top court allows women to enter temple. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.dw.com
61. Pause for Thought: Supreme Court's Verdict on Sabarimala. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from scholarship.law.ua.edu
62. Sabarimala Temple: India's Supreme Court lifts ban on .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.cnn.com
63. India's Supreme Court Orders Hindu Temple To Open .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.npr.org
64. The 'Essential Practices' Doctrine in. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from brill.com
65. Conflicting Fundamental Rights Under the Indian Constitution. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from scholarship.law.columbia.edu
66. Ayodhya verdict: Indian top court gives disputed site to .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.aljazeera.com
67. Ayodhya: India's top court gives Hindus site claimed by .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.theguardian.com
68. 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from en.wikipedia.org
69. Ayodhya verdict highlights: 'I stand vindicated, feel deeply .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.hindustantimes.com
70. Freedom of Religion in India: Current Issues and Supreme .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from digitalcommons.law.byu.edu
71. Ayodhya five-judge bench of Supreme Court. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.indiatoday.in
72. 2023 Supreme Court Review: 10 key judgements. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.scobserver.in
73. Independence of judiciary depends on the freedom .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.thehindu.com
74. Collegium System in India: The 3 famous judges' case that led .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from legalsynk.com
75. The Contest Over the Collegium System in India - LSE Blogs. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from blogs.lse.ac.uk
76. From Executive Appointment to the Collegium System. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.jstor.org/stable/26630269
77. All you need to know about NJAC - Mint. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.livemint.com
78. NJAC vs collegium: the debate decoded | Latest News. (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.thehindu.com
79. An Analysis of the National Judicial Appointment .... (n.d.) retrieved March 6, 2024, from www.rostrumlegal.com