Module 42. Key Judicial Verdicts & Doctrines

The evolution of constitutional law and the democratic framework in India has been profoundly shaped by a series of landmark judicial verdicts and doctrines. These rulings, pronounced primarily by the Supreme Court of India, have established guiding principles that ensure the supremacy of the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the protection of fundamental rights. The judiciary, through its interpretative and adjudicatory functions, has consistently reaffirmed its role as the guardian of the Constitution.

Background and Constitutional Context

The Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, enshrined a balance between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. However, several constitutional ambiguities and socio-political challenges necessitated judicial intervention to define the scope and limits of governmental powers. Over the decades, the Supreme Court’s verdicts have not only clarified constitutional provisions but also introduced doctrines that now form integral parts of Indian jurisprudence.
The dynamic interpretation of the Constitution has helped preserve its spirit amid evolving political, social, and economic circumstances. Judicial pronouncements have been pivotal in maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution over parliamentary sovereignty.

Landmark Judicial Verdicts

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)This historic verdict established the Basic Structure Doctrine, affirming that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter its ‘basic structure’. The doctrine safeguarded fundamental principles such as the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, judicial review, and the separation of powers. It remains a cornerstone of constitutional interpretation in India.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)Expanding the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), the Court ruled that the ‘procedure established by law’ must be ‘just, fair and reasonable’. This case marked a shift from a narrow interpretation of rights to a broader understanding encompassing dignity and due process, significantly strengthening human rights protection.
3. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)Reaffirming the Basic Structure Doctrine, the Court struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment that gave Parliament unlimited amending powers. The judgment emphasised that harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is essential for constitutional balance.
4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)The Court invalidated the 39th Amendment, which attempted to bar judicial review of the Prime Minister’s election. This case underscored the doctrine of judicial review as part of the basic structure, thereby ensuring accountability of all public offices.
5. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)This judgment curbed arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule (Article 356) and reinforced federalism by subjecting such decisions to judicial scrutiny. The ruling established that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution and that the misuse of constitutional powers for political motives is unconstitutional.
6. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)In the absence of domestic legislation, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to address sexual harassment at the workplace, recognising gender equality and dignity as integral to Article 21. These guidelines later formed the basis of the POSH Act (2013).
7. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)The Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati case are open to judicial review if they violate the basic structure, reinforcing constitutional supremacy over legislative immunity.
8. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)The Supreme Court decriminalised homosexuality by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, recognising the right to privacy, dignity, and equality as essential components of the Constitution.
9. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018)Commonly known as the Sabarimala case, this verdict upheld the right of women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple, asserting that religious freedom cannot override equality and non-discrimination principles.

Major Judicial Doctrines

1. Doctrine of Basic StructureEvolved from the Kesavananda Bharati case, this doctrine ensures that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution’s fundamental framework. Elements like democracy, secularism, and the rule of law are protected under this principle.
2. Doctrine of Judicial ReviewThis doctrine allows the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. It upholds the supremacy of the Constitution and ensures that no organ of the state exceeds its authority.
3. Doctrine of Separation of PowersThough not explicitly mentioned, the Constitution implies a separation between the three branches of government. The judiciary has reaffirmed this doctrine to prevent concentration of power and to maintain checks and balances.
4. Doctrine of EclipseIt posits that a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is not void but merely dormant (‘eclipsed’) and may revive if the inconsistency is removed. This doctrine was established in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955).
5. Doctrine of Pith and SubstanceUsed in federal disputes, this doctrine determines whether a law falls within the jurisdiction of the enacting legislature by examining its true nature and essence, not merely its form.
6. Doctrine of Colourable LegislationIt prevents the legislature from doing indirectly what it cannot do directly. The principle maintains the integrity of constitutional competence and prevents legislative fraud.
7. Doctrine of Harmonious ConstructionWhen two provisions of the Constitution appear to conflict, this doctrine ensures both are interpreted in harmony, preserving the intent of the framers.
8. Doctrine of ProportionalityAdopted in administrative and constitutional law, it mandates that governmental actions must not exceed what is necessary to achieve legitimate objectives, ensuring fairness and balance between means and ends.
9. Doctrine of Locus StandiTraditionally, only the affected party could approach the court. However, through the evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Court expanded the concept, allowing any concerned citizen to seek justice on behalf of disadvantaged groups.

Significance and Impact

Judicial verdicts and doctrines have collectively transformed the Indian legal system from a rigid framework into a dynamic instrument of social justice. They have strengthened constitutional morality, empowered citizens, and ensured the state remains accountable to the rule of law. These principles underpin the democratic ethos of India, safeguarding individual rights while balancing the needs of governance.