The Supreme Court of India marks its 75th year as one of the world's most vibrant and dynamic apex courts, according to Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who recently celebrated the court's enduring legacy and pivotal role in shaping Indian jurisprudence. Speaking to fellow jurists, CJI Khanna compared landmark judgments to the rings of a mature tree, each one representing significant legal evolution and the very pulse of the nation.
Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has played a fundamental role not only as the guardian of the Constitution but also as the bastion of fundamental rights for Indian citizens. This article revisits some of the landmark judgments cited by CJI Khanna, detailing their impact on both legal doctrine and societal values.
One of the earliest significant cases was Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950), which set the tone for free speech rights post-independence. The Supreme Court struck down the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, affirming the necessity of liberty and limiting arbitrary state power. This judgment formed the bedrock for free expression, reinforcing Article 19 of the Constitution.
The 1961 case of Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh established the principle of res judicata, emphasizing the finality of judicial decisions. The court ruled against repetitive challenges to previous judgments, bolstering the integrity of legal processes.
Among the landmark cases from the 1970s, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is especially notable. This case marked the birth of the "basic structure" doctrine, with the Supreme Court ruling against the Parliament's ability to amend fundamental rights indiscriminately. The decision was historic, asserting constitutional limits on legislative amendments and preventing violations of core democratic principles.
Similarly, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975) underscored the inviolability of the rule of law. After Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was found guilty of election malpractices, the court reaffirmed the necessity for free elections and judicial review, establishing these as fundamental principles embedded within the Indian Constitution.
With the advent of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the 1976 case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai opened up the courts to address social justice issues beyond individual grievances. This welcomed the participation of labor unions and marginalized groups, allowing collective grievances to find their way through judicial channels.
Another transformative ruling was Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which redefined the right to personal liberty under Article 21. This case expanded the interpretation of fundamental rights and established the necessity for just, fair, and reasonable legal procedures, holding the state accountable for arbitrary actions.
Through the 1980s and 1990s, the Supreme Court continued to expand fundamental rights, noted through Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), which upheld the Mandal Commission recommendations for OBC reservations, affirming caste as valid for social justice measures.
Further grounding its commitment to individual rights, the Supreme Court ruled on Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1997), addressing bonded labor—an issue deeply entrenched within society. The court mandated state action for the liberation and rehabilitation of bonded laborers, reinforcing Article 21's emphasis on the right to live with dignity.
The Supreme Court's proactive approach has not been limited to rights protection alone; it has also emphasized the need for structural integrity within the judiciary. The 1981 SP Gupta v. Union of India case highlighted this, questioning executive overreach concerning judicial appointments and underscoring the need for independence from political influence.
Most recently, discussions around the appointment of judges have reignited debates about judicial independence, particularly with moves like Pakistan's Judicial Commission of Pakistan facing criticism for potential executive dominance over judicial appointments. This raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between the branches of government, underscoring the Supreme Court's role as the protector of constitutional sanctity.
Looking forward, the role of the Supreme Court as guardian of citizens’ rights remains critically important. CJI Khanna's speech not only commemorates the accomplishments of the apex court but also serves as a clarion call for maintaining the independence and efficacy of the judiciary at large. This enduring institution continues to navigate the challenges of governance, societal evolution, and the protection of civil liberties.
The historical and contemporary significance of the Supreme Court reflects its commitment to uphold the principles of justice, fairness, and democracy. Each judgment has not only contributed to legal precedent but also shaped the narrative of what it means to be governed by law—a principle at the very heart of India's democratic ethos.