PREAMBLE & BASIC STRUCTURE

Shankari Prasad v. Union of

India
Citation: AIR 1951 SC 458 / 1951 INSC 42

Key Issue
First challenge to constitutional amendments.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court validated the First Amendment Act of 1951,
which curtailed the right to property. It held that Parliament's
power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was absolute
and included the power to amend Fundamental Rights. The
Court reasoned that an 'amendment' was not 'law' in the sense
of Article 13(2), thus creating a distinction between legislative
and constituent power. This verdict established the initial
precedent for parliamentary supremacy in constitutional
amendments.
 PREAMBLE & BASIC STRUCTURE

Sajjan Singh v. State of

Rajasthan
Citation: AIR 1965 SC 845 / 1964 INSC 246

Key Issue
Amendment of Fundamental Rights.

Decision / Importance
This case upheld the precedent set in Shankari Prasad. The
Supreme Court, while affirming Parliament's sweeping power to
amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, also saw
the first seeds of dissent. Justices Hidayatullah and Mudholkar
questioned whether Fundamental Rights, intended as the
cornerstone of the Constitution, could be so easily altered. This
dissent paved the way for future challenges and the eventual
development of the Basic Structure doctrine.
 PREAMBLE & BASIC STRUCTURE

Golaknath v. State of Punjab

Citation: AIR 1967 SC 1643 / 1967 INSC 45

Key Issue
Amending power VS. Fundamental Rights.

Decision / Importance
In a landmark reversal of earlier precedents, a majority of 6:5
held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights. The
Court ruled that a constitutional amendment was 'law' under
Article 13 and therefore could not abridge or take away the
rights in Part III. It introduced the doctrine of 'prospective
overruling' to prevent chaos by protecting past amendments.
This decision marked a significant shift towards the primacy of
Fundamental Rights over parliamentary power.
 PREAMBLE & BASIC STRUCTURE

Kesavananda Bharati v. State

of Kerala
Citation: (1973) 4 SCC 225 / 1973 INSC 91

Key Issue
The Basic Structure doctrine.

Decision / Importance
In this seminal judgment, a 13-judge bench established the
'Basic Structure' doctrine. The Court held that while Parliament
has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, this power
is not unlimited. It cannot be used to alter, abrogate, or destroy
the fundamental features or the 'basic structure' of the
Constitution, which includes elements like supremacy of the
Constitution, republican and democratic form of government,
secular character, separation of powers, and federal character.
This case effectively created a firewall against legislative
overreach, preserving the core identity of the Constitution.
 PREAMBLE & BASIC STRUCTURE

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj

Narain
Citation: AIR 1975 SC 2299 / 1975 AIR 1590

Key Issue
Election dispute and constitutional amendment.

Decision / Importance
The Court applied the Basic Structure doctrine to strike down
Clause (4) of Article 329-A, which was inserted by the 39th
Amendment to validate the Prime Minister's election. The Court
held that features like democracy, rule of law, and judicial review
were part of the basic structure and could not be nullified by an
amendment. This judgment was a powerful assertion of judicial
review over legislative actions, even during the Emergency.
 PREAMBLE & BASIC STRUCTURE

Minerva Mills v. Union of

India
Citation: (1980) 3 SCC 625 / AIR 1980 SC 1789

Key Issue
Limitations on amending power.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court struck down sections of the 42nd
Amendment Act, 1976, which had given Directive Principles
primacy over Fundamental Rights and had removed all
limitations on Parliament's amending power. The Court
reinforced the Basic Structure doctrine, stating that limited
amending power is itself a basic feature. It established that the
harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles are essential to the constitutional
framework.
 PREAMBLE & BASIC STRUCTURE

Waman Rao v. Union of India

Citation: (1981) 2 SCC 362 / 1980 INSC 242

Key Issue
Validation of post-Kesavananda amendments.

Decision / Importance
The Court decided that amendments made to the Constitution
before the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (April 24, 1973) were
valid and could not be challenged on the ground of violating the
Basic Structure doctrine. However, any amendments made after
this date would be subject to the test of the Basic Structure. This
created a clear cut-off date, stabilizing past legislative actions
while ensuring future amendments adhere to constitutional
limits.
 PREAMBLE & BASIC STRUCTURE

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

Citation: (1994) 3 SCC 1 / AIR 1994 SC 1918

Key Issue
Federalism & scope of President's Rule.

Decision / Importance
This landmark judgment curtailed the arbitrary imposition of
President's Rule under Article 356. The Court held that the
proclamation is subject to judicial review and that the
President's power is conditional, not absolute. It established that
secularism and federalism are basic features of the Constitution
and that the majority support of a government must be tested on
the floor of the House, not by the subjective opinion of the
Governor.
 PREAMBLE & BASIC STRUCTURE

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of

India
Citation: (1997) 3 SCC 261 / AIR 1997 SC 1125

Key Issue
Tribunals and judicial review.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review vested
in the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court
under Article 32 is an integral and essential feature of the
Constitution, forming part of its Basic Structure. Therefore, the
jurisdiction of these courts cannot be completely ousted by
statutory tribunals created under Articles 323A and 323B. All
decisions of such tribunals would be subject to the scrutiny of a
Division Bench of the High Court.
 PREAMBLE & BASIC STRUCTURE

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India

Citation: (2006) 8 SCC 212 / 2006 INSC 711

Key Issue
Reservation amendments & Basic Structure.

Decision / Importance
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of amendments
enabling reservation in promotions for SCs and STs. However, it
laid down stringent conditions for their application. The state
must provide quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the
class, the inadequacy of its representation in public
employment, and ensure that overall administrative efficiency is
not compromised. This judgment balances affirmative action
with constitutional principles of equality and efficiency.
 PREAMBLE & BASIC STRUCTURE

I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N.

Citation: (2007) 2 SCC 1 / (2007) 2 SCC 1

Key Issue
Ninth Schedule laws & Basic Structure.

Decision / Importance
In a unanimous verdict, a nine-judge bench held that no law
placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of the
Kesavananda Bharati judgment) is immune from judicial review
if it violates the Basic Structure of the Constitution. This historic
judgment plugged a constitutional loophole, ensuring that even
laws given special protection under the Ninth Schedule must
conform to the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
 PREAMBLE & BASIC STRUCTURE

R.C. Cooper v. Union of India

Citation: AIR 1970 SC 564 / 1970 INSC 18

Key Issue
Right to property and constitutional validity.

Decision / Importance
This case, also known as the Bank Nationalisation case, was
significant for establishing a relationship test between the
affected article and the direct consequence of the state action.
The court held that the constitutional validity of a law must be
judged by its direct effect on fundamental rights, not just its
object or form. It emphasized that property rights were crucial
and could not be taken away without adequate compensation, a
position that was later altered by subsequent constitutional
amendments.
 CITIZENSHIP

State Trading Corp. v. CTO

Citation: AIR 1963 SC 1811 / AIR 1963 SC 1811

Key Issue
Whether corporations can claim citizenship.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court clarified that corporations and other legal
entities cannot be considered 'citizens' for the purpose of
invoking Fundamental Rights that are exclusively granted to
natural persons (like those under Article 19). It was held that
citizenship, as defined under Part II of the Constitution, pertains
only to individuals, not juridical persons. This has significant
implications for corporate law and constitutional claims.
 CITIZENSHIP

Aziz Basha v. Union of India

Citation: AIR 1968 SC 662 / AIR 1968 SC 662

Key Issue
Minority status & citizenship implications.

Decision / Importance
The Court held that Aligarh Muslim University was established
by a Central Act and not by the Muslim minority. Therefore, it
could not be considered a minority institution for the purposes
of Article 30. This judgment set a precedent that for an
institution to claim minority status, it must be proven that it was
both established and administered by the minority community.
 CITIZENSHIP

Pradeep Jain v. Union of India

Citation: (1984) 3 SCC 654 / 1984 AIR 1420

Key Issue
Domicile & admission to medical colleges.

Decision / Importance
The Court ruled on the issue of 'domicile' for educational
admissions, holding that India has only one single domicile. It
struck down rules that mandated long-term residence for
university admissions as violative of Article 14. However, it
allowed for some level of institutional preference or reservation
for residents of a particular state as a pragmatic concession,
provided it was reasonable and not a wholesale reservation,
thereby balancing national unity with state interests.
 CITIZENSHIP

Louis De Raedt v. Union of

India
Citation: (1991) 3 SCC 554 / 1991 AIR 1886

Key Issue
Acquisition/termination of citizenship.

Decision / Importance
The Court clarified the principles of domicile of origin and
domicile of choice, stating that a foreigner must demonstrate a
clear and unequivocal intention to make India their permanent
home to acquire Indian citizenship. The fundamental right under
Article 19(1)(e) to reside and settle in any part of India is
available only to citizens, not foreigners, whose right to stay is
governed by the Foreigners Act.
 CITIZENSHIP

Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union

of India
Citation: (2005) 5 SCC 665 / (2005) 5 SCC 665

Key Issue
Illegal migration & citizenship checks.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court declared the Illegal Migrants (Determination
by Tribunals) Act, 1983, as unconstitutional. The Act, applicable
only to Assam, placed the burden of proof on the accuser,
making it difficult to identify and deport illegal immigrants. The
Court held this differential treatment violated Article 14 and
hindered the state's duty to protect against external aggression
and internal disturbance, reinforcing the standard procedures
under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
 RIGHT TO EQUALITY (ART 14, 15,
16)

State of West Bengal v. Anwar

Ali Sarkar
Citation: AIR 1952 SC 75 / 1951 INSC 77

Key Issue
Classification under Art. 14.

Decision / Importance
The Court laid down the "reasonable classification" test for
Article 14. It held that any classification must be based on an
intelligible differentia (a discernible difference) and this
differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to
be achieved by the legislation. A law that fails this two-pronged
test is arbitrary and violates the right to equality.
 RIGHT TO EQUALITY (ART 14, 15,
16)

E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.

Citation: (1974) 4 SCC 3 / 1973 INSC 226

Key Issue
Equality is a dynamic concept.

Decision / Importance
Justice Bhagwati introduced a new dimension to Article 14,
stating that 'Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects
and dimensions and it cannot be cribbed, cabined and confined
within traditional and doctrinaire limits.' The Court held that
arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality, and any state action
that is arbitrary, whether legislative or executive, would be
violative of Article 14.
 RIGHT TO EQUALITY (ART 14, 15,
16)

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of

India
Citation: (1978) 1 SCC 248 / 1978 INSC 16

Key Issue
Expanded meaning of "procedure established by law".

Decision / Importance
This case established the "golden triangle" of Articles 14, 19,
and 21, holding that they are interconnected and must be read
together. Any procedure that deprives a person of life or
personal liberty must not only be established by law but must
also be just, fair, and reasonable, satisfying the test of Article 14.
It infused the American concept of "due process" into Article 21.
 RIGHT TO EQUALITY (ART 14, 15,
16)

Air India v. Nargesh Meerza

Citation: (1981) 4 SCC 335 / 1981 INSC 159

Key Issue
Gender discrimination in employment.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court struck down Air India regulations that
mandated the retirement of air hostesses upon their first
pregnancy or within four years of marriage. The Court found
these rules to be unreasonable, arbitrary, and a clear violation of
Article 14. It was a significant step towards ensuring gender
equality in the workplace.
 RIGHT TO EQUALITY (ART 14, 15,
16)

Randhir Singh v. Union of

India
Citation: (1982) 1 SCC 618 / 1982 INSC 22

Key Issue
Equal pay for equal work.

Decision / Importance
While not an explicit Fundamental Right, the Court held that the
principle of "equal pay for equal work" is a constitutional goal
deducible from Articles 14, 16, and 39(d). It ruled that denying
equal pay for identical work amounts to arbitrary discrimination
and can be challenged under Article 14. This judgment has been
pivotal in demanding wage parity in public employment.
 RIGHT TO EQUALITY (ART 14, 15,
16)

Indra Sawhney v. Union of

India
Citation: 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 / 1992 INSC 259

Key Issue
Mandal Commission & OBC reservations.

Decision / Importance
This nine-judge bench judgment upheld the implementation of
27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). It capped
the total reservation at 50% and introduced the concept of the
'creamy layer,' mandating that the socially and economically
advanced members of OBCs should be excluded from the
benefits of reservation. It also clarified that reservations are
confined to initial appointments and not promotions.
 RIGHT TO EQUALITY (ART 14, 15,
16)

State of Kerala v. N.M.

Thomas
Citation: (1976) 2 SCC 310 / 1975 INSC 206

Key Issue
Reservation & promotion in services.

Decision / Importance
The Court upheld a rule that relaxed promotion criteria for SC/ST
employees, providing a broad interpretation of equality and
affirmative action. It held that Article 16(1) is a facet of Article 14
and that the state can take measures to ensure substantive, not
just formal, equality for disadvantaged groups, even if it
involves preferential treatment.
 RIGHT TO EQUALITY (ART 14, 15,
16)

E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P.

Citation: (2005) 1 SCC 394 / 2004 INSC 673

Key Issue
Sub-classification among SCs.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court held that the state legislature did not have
the power to create sub-classifications within the Scheduled
Castes list for the purpose of reservation. It reasoned that the
list of Scheduled Castes is determined by the President under
Article 341, and only Parliament can amend this list. Therefore,
treating one sub-caste as more backward than another within
the SC list was unconstitutional.
 RIGHT TO EQUALITY (ART 14, 15,
16)

Shayara Bano v. Union of

India
Citation: (2017) 9 SCC 1 / 2017 INSC 746

Key Issue
Triple talaq and constitutional validity.

Decision / Importance
In a landmark 3:2 majority verdict, the Supreme Court declared
the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat)
unconstitutional. The majority found the practice to be arbitrary
and violative of Article 14 (right to equality), as it allowed a
Muslim man to divorce his wife whimsically and irrevocably. This
judgment was a major victory for gender justice.
 RIGHT TO EQUALITY (ART 14, 15,
16)

Jarnail Singh v. Lacchmi

Narain Gupta
Citation: (2018) 10 SCC 396 / 2018 INSC 812

Key Issue
Reservation in promotions.

Decision / Importance
The Court affirmed that the 'creamy layer' principle, previously
applied to OBCs, should also be applied to SCs and STs to
exclude the affluent among them from the benefits of
reservation in promotions. It ensured that the benefits of
affirmative action reach the most deserving and marginalized
sections within these communities.
 RIGHT TO EQUALITY (ART 14, 15,
16)

Joseph Shine v. Union of India

Citation: (2019) 3 SCC 39 / 2018 INSC 854

Key Issue
Criminalization of adultery.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal
Code, a 158-year-old law that criminalized adultery. The Court
declared it unconstitutional, holding that it treated women as the
property of their husbands and violated Articles 14, 15, and 21.
The judgment emphasized individual autonomy, dignity, and the
equality of genders within a marriage.
 FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 19

Romesh Thapar v. State of

Madras
Citation: AIR 1950 SC 124 / 1950 INSC 15

Key Issue
Freedom of speech & press censorship.

Decision / Importance
One of the earliest cases on press freedom, the Court held that
freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom of
propagation of ideas, which is secured by freedom of
circulation. It ruled that unless a law restricting speech is
directed solely against the undermining of the security of the
State, it cannot be deemed a reasonable restriction under Article
19(2).
 FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 19

Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi

Citation: AIR 1950 SC 129 / 1950 INSC 16

Key Issue
Pre-censorship of press.

Decision / Importance
The Court struck down a law that required pre-censorship of a
newspaper, holding that pre-censorship is a serious
infringement on the freedom of speech and expression. It
established that restrictions on this fundamental right must be
very narrow and justified only in exceptional circumstances,
setting a high bar for any form of prior restraint on publication.
 FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 19

Express Newspapers v. Union

of India
Citation: AIR 1958 SC 578 / 1958 INSC 24

Key Issue
Press freedom vs. taxation.

Decision / Importance
The Court held that while the press is not immune from general
taxation laws, a tax specifically targeted at newspapers that has
the effect of crippling their circulation or freedom would be an
unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of the press. The
judgment emphasized that the state cannot use its taxing power
to indirectly control or suppress newspapers.
 FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 19

Sakal Papers v. Union of India

Citation: AIR 1962 SC 305 / 1961 INSC 280

Key Issue
Regulation on newspaper pricing & page limits.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court struck down government regulations that
fixed the number of pages and the price of newspapers. It held
that such rules directly curtailed the freedom of the press under
Article 19(1)(a), as they limited the dissemination of news and
views. The right to propagate ideas includes the right to
determine the volume of circulation.
 FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 19

K.A. Abbas v. Union of India

Citation: (1970) 2 SCC 780 / 1970 INSC 226

Key Issue
Film censorship.

Decision / Importance
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of film censorship,
distinguishing it from press censorship. It reasoned that films
have a greater potential to influence and deprave, justifying a
system of prior restraint. However, it mandated that censorship
must be based on clear, reasonable, and well-defined principles
to avoid arbitrariness.
 FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 19

Bennett Coleman & Co. v.

Union of India
Citation: (1972) 2 SCC 788 / 1972 INSC 240

Key Issue
Newspaper page limits & import restrictions.

Decision / Importance
The Court struck down the government's newsprint import
policy, which restricted the number of pages a newspaper could
publish. It was held that this policy directly infringed upon the
freedom of speech and expression by limiting the space for
news and views. The judgment affirmed that freedom of the
press involves both quantitative and qualitative aspects.
 FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 19

PUCL v. Union of India (Phone

Tapping)
Citation: (1997) 1 SCC 301 / 1996 INSC 1421

Key Issue
Right to privacy as part of free speech.

Decision / Importance
The Court held that telephone tapping constitutes a serious
invasion of the right to privacy, which is an integral part of the
right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and the right to
freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). It laid
down strict guidelines and procedural safeguards that must be
followed before the state can intercept telephonic
conversations.
 FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 19

Shreya Singhal v. Union of

India
Citation: (2015) 5 SCC 1 / 2015 INSC 222

Key Issue
Section 66A of IT Act - online speech restrictions.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. The Court found the
provision to be vague, overbroad, and a disproportionate
restriction on the freedom of speech online. It distinguished
between advocacy, incitement, and discussion, holding that only
speech that amounts to incitement can be reasonably restricted.
This is a landmark judgment for digital rights and free speech.
 FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 19

Chintaman Rao v. State of

M.P.
Citation: AIR 1951 SC 118 / 1950 INSC 44

Key Issue
Reasonable restrictions test.

Decision / Importance
This case provided an early interpretation of "reasonable
restrictions" under Article 19. The Court held that a restriction
must have a rational connection with the object it seeks to
achieve and must not be excessive. A law that imposes a total
prohibition on a lawful business or activity under the guise of
regulation would be an unreasonable restriction and therefore
unconstitutional.
 FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 19

S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan
Ram
Citation: (1989) 2 SCC 574 / 1989 INSC 81

Key Issue
Censorship of films & maintenance of public order.

Decision / Importance
The Court set a high standard for restricting freedom of
expression on grounds of public order. It held that the restriction
must be justified on the basis of a 'proximate and direct' nexus
with public disorder. The expression cannot be suppressed on
account of a threat from a few intolerant people; it is the duty of
the state to protect the freedom of expression, not to surrender
to threats.
 RIGHT TO LIFE (ARTICLE 21)

A.K. Gopalan v. State of

Madras
Citation: AIR 1950 SC 27 / 1950 INSC 14

Key Issue
Early interpretation of personal liberty.

Decision / Importance
In its early, narrow interpretation, the Court held that the
"procedure established by law" under Article 21 meant any
procedure prescribed by a validly enacted law. It did not need to
be fair or reasonable. The Court also held that Fundamental
Rights were mutually exclusive, so a law affecting personal
liberty under Article 21 could not be tested for reasonableness
under Article 19. This restrictive view was later overturned in
Maneka Gandhi.
 RIGHT TO LIFE (ARTICLE 21)

Sunil Batra v. Delhi

Administration
Citation: (1978) 4 SCC 494 / 1978 INSC 140

Key Issue
Prisoner rights & custodial torture.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court significantly expanded the rights of
prisoners, holding that convicts are not "slaves of the state" and
retain their fundamental rights. It ruled that solitary confinement
is a form of torture that can only be imposed in exceptional
cases after following due procedure. The judgment affirmed that
Article 21 protects prisoners from cruel and unusual
punishment.
 RIGHT TO LIFE (ARTICLE 21)

M.H. Hoskot v. State of

Maharashtra
Citation: (1978) 3 SCC 544 / 1978 INSC 165

Key Issue
Right to free legal aid.

Decision / Importance
The Court declared that the right to free legal aid for an indigent
accused who cannot afford legal representation is a
fundamental right implicit in Article 21. It held that a trial
conducted without offering legal aid to an accused in need
would be procedurally unfair and could vitiate the conviction.
This was a crucial step in ensuring access to justice for all.
 RIGHT TO LIFE (ARTICLE 21)

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of

Bihar
Citation: (1979) 3 SCC 532 / 1979 INSC 43

Key Issue
Speedy trial & undertrial prisoners.

Decision / Importance
In this landmark PIL, the Court recognized the right to a speedy
trial as a fundamental right implicit in Article 21. It was appalled
by the plight of thousands of undertrial prisoners languishing in
jails for periods longer than the maximum sentence for their
alleged crimes. The Court ordered the immediate release of such
prisoners, establishing a vital safeguard against administrative
lethargy.
 RIGHT TO LIFE (ARTICLE 21)

Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT

of Delhi
Citation: (1981) 1 SCC 608 / 1980 INSC 253

Key Issue
Personal liberty & prison reforms.

Decision / Importance
The Court gave an expansive meaning to the "right to life,"
holding that it is not limited to mere animal existence but
includes the right to live with human dignity. This encompasses
the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing,
shelter, and facilities for reading, writing, and expressing
oneself. Any restriction on a detenu must be tested for
reasonableness.
 RIGHT TO LIFE (ARTICLE 21)

Olga Tellis v. Bombay

Municipal Corp.
Citation: (1985) 3 SCC 545 / 1985 INSC 139

Key Issue
Pavement dwellers & right to livelihood.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court held that the "right to livelihood" is an
integral component of the right to life under Article 21, because
no person can live without the means of living. While
acknowledging the government's power to evict encroachers,
the Court mandated that such eviction must follow a fair and just
procedure, ensuring that pavement dwellers are not deprived of
their livelihood without a reasonable alternative.
 RIGHT TO LIFE (ARTICLE 21)

Parmananda Katara v. Union

of India
Citation: (1989) 4 SCC 286 / 1989 INSC 234

Key Issue
Duty of doctors to provide emergency care.

Decision / Importance
The Court elevated the professional duty of doctors to a
constitutional obligation. It held that every doctor, whether at a
government or private hospital, has a duty to provide immediate
medical aid to save the life of a person in an emergency.
Procedural formalities, such as police reports, cannot stand in
the way of this life-saving duty, which is rooted in the right to life
under Article 21.
 RIGHT TO LIFE (ARTICLE 21)

Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab

Citation: (1996) 2 SCC 648 / 1996 INSC 350

Key Issue
Euthanasia & suicide.

Decision / Importance
The Court overruled a previous decision and held that the "right
to life" under Article 21 does not include the "right to die." It
reasoned that the right to life is a natural right to live with
dignity, and its extinction is not a part of it. The Court upheld the
constitutionality of Section 309 of the IPC, which criminalized
the attempt to commit suicide, distinguishing it from passive
euthanasia.
 RIGHT TO LIFE (ARTICLE 21)

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: (1997) 6 SCC 241 / 1997 INSC 665

Key Issue
Sexual harassment at workplace.

Decision / Importance
In the absence of any domestic law, the Supreme Court,
invoking international conventions, laid down a comprehensive
set of guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women in the
workplace. These "Vishaka Guidelines" were declared to be law
under Article 141 until Parliament enacted a specific law. The
Court interpreted sexual harassment as a violation of the
fundamental rights to equality, life, and liberty.
 RIGHT TO LIFE (ARTICLE 21)

Consumer Education &

Research Ctr. v. Union of India
Citation: (1995) 3 SCC 42 / 1995 INSC 15

Key Issue
Right to health.

Decision / Importance
The Court declared that the right to health and medical care is a
fundamental right under Article 21, as it is essential for a
meaningful right to life. In the context of asbestos industry
workers, it held that employers have an obligation to provide a
safe working environment and that the state has a duty to
ensure the health and well-being of its workforce, particularly in
hazardous industries.
 RIGHT TO LIFE (ARTICLE 21)

Common Cause v. Union of

India
Citation: (2018) 5 SCC 1 / 2018 INSC 226

Key Issue
Living wills & passive euthanasia.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court recognized the "right to die with dignity" as
a fundamental right and legalized passive euthanasia. It
permitted the execution of "living wills" or advance medical
directives, which allow individuals to refuse medical treatment in
the event of a terminal illness. The judgment laid down elaborate
guidelines to prevent misuse, balancing individual autonomy
with the sanctity of life.
 RIGHT TO LIFE (ARTICLE 21)

Charles Sobraj v. Supt.

Central Jail
Citation: (1978) 4 SCC 104 / 1978 INSC 147

Key Issue
Conditions of imprisonment.

Decision / Importance
This judgment further reinforced the rights of prisoners. The
Court held that imprisonment does not mean the end of
fundamental rights. It emphasized that prisoners are entitled to
humane treatment and that prison conditions must not be
degrading or inhumane. Any form of torture or cruel treatment
within the prison walls is a violation of Article 21.
 RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL
REMEDIES & PIL (ARTICLE 32)

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v.

Union of India
Citation: (1984) 3 SCC 161 / 1983 INSC 222

Key Issue
Bonded labor & public interest litigation.

Decision / Importance
The Court greatly expanded the scope of Public Interest
Litigation (PIL), relaxing the traditional rule of locus standi. It
allowed social action groups to file petitions on behalf of the
poor and oppressed who could not approach the court
themselves. The judgment affirmed the Court's power to appoint
commissions to gather facts, effectively creating an
investigative arm for the judiciary in PIL cases to secure social
justice.
 RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL
REMEDIES & PIL (ARTICLE 32)

People's Union for Democratic

Rights v. Union of India
Citation: (1982) 3 SCC 235 / 1982 INSC 86

Key Issue
Non-payment of minimum wages & PIL.

Decision / Importance
Also known as the Asiad Workers case, the Court held that non-
payment of minimum wages amounted to "forced labour" under
Article 23. It declared that any person can move the Court on
behalf of those whose rights are violated, solidifying the concept
of representative PIL. The judgment expanded the meaning of
fundamental rights to include socio-economic rights essential
for a life of dignity.
 RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL
REMEDIES & PIL (ARTICLE 32)

Sheela Barse v. State of

Maharashtra
Citation: (1983) 2 SCC 96 / 1983 INSC 11

Key Issue
Custodial violence & PIL.

Decision / Importance
The Court affirmed that journalists and social activists have the
locus standi to file PILs to protect the rights of others. In this
case, focusing on custodial violence against women, the Court
issued a series of directions for the protection of female
detainees in police lock-ups, including ensuring the presence of
female constables during interrogation and providing legal aid.
This highlighted the role of PIL in ensuring human rights.
 RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL
REMEDIES & PIL (ARTICLE 32)

D.K. Basu v. State of W.B.

Citation: (1997) 1 SCC 416 / 1996 INSC 1435

Key Issue
Guidelines on arrest & detention.

Decision / Importance
To curb custodial torture and deaths, the Supreme Court issued
a set of 11 mandatory guidelines for arrest and detention. These
include the right of the arrestee to be informed of the grounds of
arrest, the right to have a friend or relative informed, the right to
medical examination, and the preparation of a proper arrest
memo. These guidelines have the force of law and are a crucial
safeguard against police brutality.
 RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL
REMEDIES & PIL (ARTICLE 32)

Vineet Narain v. Union of

India
Citation: (1998) 1 SCC 226 / 1997 INSC 940

Key Issue
Hawala scam & accountability.

Decision / Importance
In the Hawala case, the Court, through a PIL, stepped in to
ensure a fair and impartial investigation into high-level political
corruption. It issued directives to ensure the independence and
autonomy of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). This judgment
demonstrated the power of PIL in enforcing accountability and
the rule of law, even at the highest echelons of government.
 RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL
REMEDIES & PIL (ARTICLE 32)

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

(Ganga Pollution case)
Citation: AIR 1988 SC 1115 / 1987 INSC 297

Key Issue
Environmental protection through PIL.

Decision / Importance
This is one of the many environmental PILs filed by M.C. Mehta.
The Court took a proactive role in environmental protection,
ordering the closure of polluting tanneries along the Ganga
river. It held that the right to a clean and healthy environment is
a fundamental right under Article 21. This case exemplifies how
PIL became a powerful tool for environmental justice in India.
 RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL
REMEDIES & PIL (ARTICLE 32)

Rural Litigation & Entitlement

Kendra v. State of U.P.
Citation: AIR 1987 SC 2187 / 1985 INSC 44

Key Issue
Limestone quarries & environmental degradation.

Decision / Importance
Often considered the first major environmental PIL, the Court
ordered the closure of several limestone quarries in the Doon
Valley. It balanced the needs of development against
environmental protection and held that the right to a healthy
environment is a fundamental right. The Court used its power
under Article 32 to enforce this right, setting a precedent for
judicial activism in environmental matters.
 RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL
REMEDIES & PIL (ARTICLE 32)

PUCL v. Union of India

(Disclosure of candidates info)
Citation: (2003) 4 SCC 399 / 2003 INSC 131

Key Issue
Voters' right to know.

Decision / Importance
The Court held that the voters' "right to know" about the
background of candidates is a fundamental right derived from
the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). It
directed the Election Commission to issue orders requiring all
candidates to disclose information about their criminal
antecedents, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications.
This judgment was a major step towards promoting
transparency and accountability in the electoral process.
 DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES (PART
IV) & FR-DPSP INTERPLAY

State of Madras v.
Champakam Dorairajan
Citation: AIR 1951 SC 226 / 1951 INSC 25

Key Issue
First major conflict: FR vs. DPSP.

Decision / Importance
In this early case, the Court held that Directive Principles of
State Policy (DPSPs) are subordinate to Fundamental Rights
(FRs). It ruled that while DPSPs are fundamental to governance,
they are not enforceable in courts, and a law that violates an FR
cannot be justified on the ground that it implements a DPSP.
This judgment led to the First Constitutional Amendment, which
added Article 15(4) to allow for affirmative action.
 DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES (PART
IV) & FR-DPSP INTERPLAY

In Re Kerala Education Bill

Citation: AIR 1958 SC 956 / 1958 INSC 81

Key Issue
Educational legislation & minority rights.

Decision / Importance
The Court introduced the "doctrine of harmonious
construction," stating that FRs and DPSPs should be read
together harmoniously. While affirming the state's power to
implement DPSPs related to education, it held that such
implementation cannot violate the fundamental rights of minority
institutions under Article 30. It was a move away from the strict
subordination of DPSPs to FRs.
 DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES (PART
IV) & FR-DPSP INTERPLAY

Mohini Jain v. State of

Karnataka
Citation: (1992) 3 SCC 666 / 1992 INSC 166

Key Issue
Capitation fees & right to education.

Decision / Importance
The Court, in a groundbreaking interpretation, held that the
"right to education" is a fundamental right implicit in the right to
life under Article 21. It reasoned that a dignified life is impossible
without education. The Court linked this right to the DPSP under
Article 45, which called for free and compulsory education,
thereby elevating a DPSP to the status of an enforceable right.
 DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES (PART
IV) & FR-DPSP INTERPLAY

Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P.

Citation: (1993) 1 SCC 645 / 1993 INSC 32

Key Issue
Detailed scheme for right to education.

Decision / Importance
Affirming the Mohini Jain verdict, this judgment clarified the
scope of the right to education. It held that the right to free and
compulsory education is a fundamental right for children up to
the age of 14. For education beyond this age, the right is subject
to the economic capacity of the state. This judgment directly led
to the 86th Amendment, which introduced Article 21A, making
education a formal fundamental right.
 DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES (PART
IV) & FR-DPSP INTERPLAY

Sanjit Roy v. State of

Rajasthan
Citation: (1983) 1 SCC 525 / 1982 INSC 165

Key Issue
Minimum wages & forced labor.

Decision / Importance
The Court held that paying less than the minimum wage for work
done under a famine relief scheme constitutes "forced labour"
under Article 23. It ruled that the state cannot take advantage of
a person's economic vulnerability to deny them their statutory
wages, even if the work is for a public purpose. This judgment
linked the DPSP of ensuring a living wage (Article 43) to the
enforceable right against forced labour.
 DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES (PART
IV) & FR-DPSP INTERPLAY

State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur

Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat
Citation: (2005) 8 SCC 534 / 2005 INSC 595

Key Issue
Ban on cow slaughter.

Decision / Importance
The Court upheld a complete ban on the slaughter of cows and
their progeny, overruling earlier judgments. It gave significant
weight to the DPSP under Article 48, which directs the state to
organize agriculture and animal husbandry on modern lines and
to prohibit the slaughter of cattle. The Court reasoned that cattle
become more valuable with age due to dung and urine, justifying
the ban as economically and ecologically sound.
 DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES (PART
IV) & FR-DPSP INTERPLAY

Narmada Bachao Andolan v.

Union of India
Citation: (2000) 10 SCC 664 / 2000 INSC 516

Key Issue
Dam construction vs. displacement & environment.

Decision / Importance
The Court, in allowing the construction of the Sardar Sarovar
Dam, emphasized the need to balance developmental projects
with environmental protection and rehabilitation of displaced
people. It held that DPSPs, which guide the state towards socio-
economic development, must be implemented, but not at the
cost of violating fundamental rights. The judgment underscored
the judiciary's role in overseeing the implementation of relief
and rehabilitation measures.
 JUDICIARY: INDEPENDENCE,
APPOINTMENT, POWERS

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India

Citation: AIR 1982 SC 149 / 1981 INSC 213

Key Issue
Judges' transfer & independence (First Judges Case).

Decision / Importance
In the First Judges Case, the Court held that the executive had
primacy in the appointment and transfer of judges. It interpreted
"consultation" with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) under Article
124 as not meaning "concurrence." This gave the government a
significant say in judicial appointments, a position that was later
reversed.
 JUDICIARY: INDEPENDENCE,
APPOINTMENT, POWERS

Sub-Committee on Judicial
Accountability v. Union of
India
Citation: (1991) 4 SCC 699 / 1991 INSC 226

Key Issue
Impeachment of Judges & judicial scrutiny.

Decision / Importance
The Court held that the process of removing a judge is subject
to judicial review. It ruled that Parliament's power in this regard
is not absolute and must adhere to fair procedure. This case
established that even the internal proceedings of Parliament
relating to judicial accountability could be examined by the
courts to ensure they comply with constitutional norms.
 JUDICIARY: INDEPENDENCE,
APPOINTMENT, POWERS

Supreme Court Advocates-on-

Record Assn. v. Union of India
(Second Judges Case)
Citation: (1993) 4 SCC 441 / 1993 INSC 441

Key Issue
"Collegium" system introduced.

Decision / Importance
Overruling S.P. Gupta, this landmark judgment established the
"collegium" system for appointing judges. It held that
"consultation" with the CJI must be given primacy, effectively
meaning concurrence. The Court vested the power of
appointment and transfer of judges in the judiciary itself, led by
the CJI and senior-most judges, to protect judicial independence
from executive interference.
 JUDICIARY: INDEPENDENCE,
APPOINTMENT, POWERS

Re (Advisory) Presidential
Reference
Citation: (1998) 7 SCC 739 / 1998 INSC 555

Key Issue
Clarifications on the Collegium system (Third Judges Case).

Decision / Importance
In the Third Judges Case, the Court clarified and expanded the
collegium system. It specified that the CJI must consult with a
collegium of the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court
for appointments. It also laid down detailed procedures for
consultation, emphasizing that the CJI's recommendation
should be based on a consensus within the collegium, making
the process more institutional and less individualistic.
 JUDICIARY: INDEPENDENCE,
APPOINTMENT, POWERS

Supreme Court Advocates-on-

Record Assn. v. Union of India
(Fourth Judges Case)
Citation: (2016) 5 SCC 1 / 2015 INSC 748

Key Issue
Struck down NJAC.

Decision / Importance
The Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and
the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act,
which sought to replace the collegium system. A majority of 4:1
held that the NJAC violated the Basic Structure of the
Constitution by undermining the independence of the judiciary.
The verdict reaffirmed the primacy of the judiciary in its own
appointments.
 JUDICIARY: INDEPENDENCE,
APPOINTMENT, POWERS

A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak

Citation: (1988) 2 SCC 602 / 1988 INSC 111

Key Issue
Special SC courts & fair trial.

Decision / Importance
The Court held that the Supreme Court cannot create a special
court and transfer a case to itself, bypassing the regular criminal
justice system, as this would violate the accused's fundamental
right to a fair trial under Article 21. It affirmed that even the
Supreme Court is bound by the due process of law and cannot
issue directions that contravene fundamental rights.
 JUDICIARY: INDEPENDENCE,
APPOINTMENT, POWERS

Kartar Singh v. State of

Punjab
Citation: (1994) 3 SCC 569 / 1994 INSC 179

Key Issue
Validity of TADA provisions.

Decision / Importance
While upholding the constitutional validity of the stringent anti-
terror law, TADA, the Court read down several of its provisions
to safeguard against misuse. It emphasized that even in the face
of terrorism, the state must not compromise on the fundamental
rights of individuals and that procedural fairness must be
maintained. The judgment sought to strike a balance between
national security and individual liberty.
 FEDERALISM

State of W.B. v. Union of India

Citation: AIR 1963 SC 1241 / 1962 INSC 309

Key Issue
Distribution of legislative powers.

Decision / Importance
The Court held that the Indian Constitution is not strictly federal,
and it has strong centralizing features. It upheld Parliament's
power to acquire property belonging to a state, reinforcing the
supremacy of the Union in certain matters. This judgment
characterized the Indian federal structure as one where the
Union holds a dominant position.
 FEDERALISM

State of Rajasthan v. Union of

India
Citation: (1977) 3 SCC 592 / 1977 INSC 110

Key Issue
Dissolution of state assemblies.

Decision / Importance
In this pre-Bommai case, the Court adopted a more restrained
approach, refusing to intervene in the President's decision to
dissolve state assemblies. However, it did establish that the
satisfaction of the President under Article 356 is not completely
beyond judicial scrutiny, laying the groundwork for the more
assertive stance taken in the S.R. Bommai case.
 FEDERALISM

Harbhajan Singh Dhillon v.

Union of India
Citation: (1971) 2 SCC 779 / 1971 INSC 283

Key Issue
Wealth tax on agriculture & legislative competence.

Decision / Importance
The Court upheld Parliament's residuary power of legislation
under Article 248 and Entry 97 of the Union List. It ruled that if a
subject matter is not explicitly mentioned in the State or
Concurrent lists, Parliament has the competence to legislate on
it. This affirmed the vastness of the Union's legislative powers.
 FEDERALISM

Gujarat v. Union of India

Citation: (2012) 12 SCC 271 / undefined

Key Issue
Governor's appointment of Lokayukta.

Decision / Importance
This case dealt with the Governor's discretionary powers. The
Court upheld the Governor's appointment of the Lokayukta,
ruling that in certain specific situations, the Governor could act
independently of the advice of the Council of Ministers. The
judgment explored the delicate balance of power between the
Governor and the state government within the federal
framework.
 FEDERALISM

State of W.B. v. Committee for

Protection of Democratic
Rights
Citation: (2010) 3 SCC 571 / 2010 INSC 124

Key Issue
CBI investigation in states.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court held that the High Courts, under their
constitutional power of judicial review (Article 226), can order a
CBI investigation into an offense committed within a state
without the state's consent. This power is to be used sparingly
in extraordinary cases to uphold justice and protect fundamental
rights, affirming the High Courts' role in maintaining the rule of
law.
 LEGISLATURE &
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

Keshav Singh v. U.P.

Legislative Assembly
Citation: (1965) All LJ 191 / 1965 All LJ 191

Key Issue
Legislative privilege VS. judicial review.

Decision / Importance
In a landmark opinion on a Presidential Reference, the Court
held that the privileges of the legislature are not absolute and
are subject to the fundamental rights of citizens. It affirmed that
the judiciary has the power to review the decisions of the
legislature concerning its privileges, especially if they impact a
citizen's fundamental rights. This established a balance between
legislative powers and individual liberties.
 LEGISLATURE &
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri

Krishna Sinha
Citation: AIR 1959 SC 395 / 1958 INSC 165

Key Issue
Freedom of press VS. legislative privilege.

Decision / Importance
In this case, the Court held that the parliamentary privilege of
prohibiting the publication of its proceedings could override the
freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a). It was reasoned that
the privileges were explicitly provided for in the Constitution,
and in case of a direct conflict, the privilege would prevail. This
position has been diluted over time.
 LEGISLATURE &
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State

(JMM Bribery Case)
Citation: (1998) 4 SCC 626 / 1998 INSC 226

Key Issue
Immunity for parliamentary votes & speech.

Decision / Importance
The Court held that MPs are immune from prosecution for any
speech or vote given within the Parliament under Article 105(2),
even if they have accepted a bribe for it. However, it clarified that
this immunity does not extend to the act of taking a bribe, which
can be prosecuted under criminal law. The judgment drew a fine
line between parliamentary conduct and criminal acts.
 LEGISLATURE &
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachilhu

Citation: 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651 / 1992 INSC 44

Key Issue
Anti-defection law.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Tenth
Schedule (Anti-Defection Law), but struck down the provision
that made the Speaker's decision final and immune from judicial
review. It held that the Speaker acts as a tribunal while deciding
defection cases and their decisions are subject to judicial review
on grounds of mala fides, perversity, or violation of natural
justice.
 LEGISLATURE &
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok

Sabha
Citation: (2007) 3 SCC 184 / 2007 INSC 30

Key Issue
Expulsion of MPs for cash-for-questions.

Decision / Importance
The Court upheld the power of the Parliament to expel its
members for misconduct that brings the institution into
disrepute. However, it affirmed that this power is not absolute
and is subject to limited judicial review. The Court can intervene
if the expulsion is based on grounds that violate constitutional
provisions or fundamental rights.
 ELECTIONS

N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning

Officer
Citation: AIR 1952 SC 64 / 1952 INSC 3

Key Issue
Judicial review of election process.

Decision / Importance
The Court held that once the election process has started, the
judiciary should not intervene. It interpreted Article 329(b) as a
bar on courts from entertaining any disputes related to elections
except through an election petition filed after the results are
declared. This established the principle of non-interference
during the electoral process to ensure its timely completion.
 ELECTIONS

Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC

Citation: (1978) 1 SCC 405 / 1977 INSC 267

Key Issue
Scope of Election Commission's powers.

Decision / Importance
The Court vastly expanded the powers of the Election
Commission under Article 324. It held that the EC has a reservoir
of power to take all necessary steps to ensure a free and fair
election, including the power to fill any gaps in existing
legislation. This judgment solidified the EC's role as the
supreme guardian of the electoral process in India.
 ELECTIONS

Union of India v. Assn. for

Democratic Reforms
Citation: (2002) 5 SCC 294 / 2002 INSC 222

Key Issue
Voter's right to information.

Decision / Importance
Building on the PUCL case, the Court reaffirmed that voters have
a fundamental right to know the background of candidates. It
directed the Election Commission to mandate the disclosure of
candidates' criminal records, assets, liabilities, and educational
qualifications, holding that this information is essential for
voters to make an informed choice, which is crucial for a healthy
democracy.
 ELECTIONS

Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India

Citation: (2006) 7 SCC 1 / 2006 INSC 524

Key Issue
Rajya Sabha elections & domicile.

Decision / Importance
The Court upheld the amendment that removed the domicile
requirement for candidates contesting Rajya Sabha elections. It
held that residence is not a basic feature of the Constitution for
representation in the Council of States. The Court also validated
the open ballot system for these elections, stating it promotes
transparency and curtails cross-voting and corruption.
 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION /
RESERVATIONS

M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore

Citation: AIR 1963 SC 649 / 1962 INSC 226

Key Issue
Introduction of concept "reasonable quota".

Decision / Importance
The Court struck down a government order that reserved 68% of
seats in educational institutions. It held that while reservations
are constitutionally permissible, they must be reasonable and
cannot be so excessive as to undermine the principle of equality.
The Court suggested that, generally, reservations should not
exceed 50%, a guideline that has been influential ever since.
 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION /
RESERVATIONS

T. Devadasan v. Union of India

Citation: AIR 1964 SC 179 / 1963 INSC 152

Key Issue
"Carry forward" rule for reservations.

Decision / Importance
The Supreme Court struck down the "carry forward" rule, which
allowed unfilled reserved vacancies from one year to be carried
forward to the next. The Court found that this could lead to a
situation where the reservation in a particular year exceeded the
50% ceiling, which it deemed unconstitutional. This judgment
reinforced the 50% limit on reservations.
 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION /
RESERVATIONS

T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State

of Karnataka
Citation: (2002) 8 SCC 481 / 2002 INSC 482

Key Issue
Minority educational institutions, reservations.

Decision / Importance
This 11-judge bench judgment clarified the rights of minority
educational institutions under Article 30. It held that the state
cannot impose its reservation policy on unaided minority
institutions. It also affirmed that all citizens have a right to
establish and administer educational institutions, and the state
can regulate admissions in unaided non-minority institutions to
ensure fairness, but cannot impose its own reservation policy.
From the Publisher
This collection is dedicated to the students,
practitioners, and enthusiasts of law. May it
serve as a vibrant and accessible guide to the
foundational pillars of the Indian Constitution,
fostering a deeper understanding of the rights
and structures that govern our nation.

Dhananjay Bhattacharya