Landmark Cases Questions for CLAT 2021, AIBE 2021 and SET 2021 | Legal Aptitude Important Cases Questions for Law Exams PDFs

Directions: Read the questions carefully and choose one of the  options as your answer.
Important for :
In which landmark case the Supreme Court held that the Second marriage of Hindu man is invalid even if he converts to Islam before marriage?
» Explain it
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India:- The case is related to the offence of Bigamy, conflict between the personal laws and a strong need for the uniform civil code in the country. The court held that, the second marriage of Hindu man after being converted to Islam, will be invalid if the first marriage has not been dissolved.

Hence, option B is correct.
In which landmark legal case it was held that preamble is not a part of the Indian Constitution?
» Explain it
In Berubari Union(I), Re:- It was held that the preamble is not part of the constitution. This judgement was overruled by 13 Judge Bench in Keshvananda Bharti case and it was held that the ‘Preamble is part of Indian Constitution’.

Hence, option A is correct.
In which Landmark legal case the Supreme Court held that Parliament has the right to amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution?
» Explain it
Shankari Prasad Case V. Union of India, 1951 Shankari Prasad Vrs. Union of India is a landmark case in the basic structure of our constitution. In the cases, the power to amend the rights had been upheld on the basis of Article 368. Chief Justice Subba Rao writing for the majority six judges in special bench of eleven, overruled the previous decisions.

Hence, option D is correct.
In which Landmark case Fundamental Rights were considered as Inviolable part of the Indian Constitution?
» Explain it
In 1967, in Golak Nath vs. The State of Punjab, a bench of eleven judges (such a large bench constituted for the first time) of the Supreme Court deliberated as to whether any part of the Fundamental Rights provisions of the constitution could be revoked or limited by amendment of the constitution. Secondly, declared that the Fundamental Rights were transcendental and inviolable and the Parliament of India had no power to take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution by way of the Constitutional amendments. Their lordship felt that the liberty of the Individual in the Indian Constitution is subject to various “reasonable restrictions” which are expressly mentioned in the Constitution and that no further limitations should be imposed on it at any time.

Hence, option A is correct.
In which landmark case the Supreme Court of India held that held that the power of judicial review vested in the High court under Art.226 and right to move the Supreme Court under Art.32 is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution?
» Explain it
The Supreme Court in this case held the exclusion of right to appeal under Article 226 and 32 is unconstitutional. These provisions in Article 323-A and 323-B are unconstitutional because they deny judicial review which is the basic feature of the Constitution. 

Hence, option A is correct.
You may also like to study

Important Case Laws for CLAT 2021
  1. NJAC (S.C Judges selection) held unconstitutional - Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of India
  2. Yakub Memon terrorist 1993 blasts midnight hearing - Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra
  3. Section 66A IT Act struck down by S.C- 66A affected Indian citizens' right to free speech. – Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India.
  4. No compromise in Rape cases -State of MP vs. Madanlal
  5. Unwed mother can become sole guardian of a child  - ABC vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
  6. Uphaar Verdict  - SushilAnsal vs. State through CBI
  7. Award Compensation to the victim of crime - Manohar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
  8. Section 364A IPC awarding death penalty not unconstitutional  - Vikram Singh vs. Union of India
  9. States cannot unilaterally grant remission  - Union of India vs. Sriharan
  10. Minimum Edu Qualification rule for Panchayat elections upheld  - Rajbala vs. State of Haryana
  11. Women can be manager of a Joint Family -  Shreya Vidyarthi vs. Ashok Vidyarthi
  12. Complete Departmental inquiries within six months  - PremNath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi
  13. RBI also under RTI - Reserve Bank of India vs. JayantilalMistry
  14. . 14. Acid Attack Victims in disability list - Parivartan Kendra vs. Union of India
  15. Writ petitions maintainable against ‘deemed Universities’ - Dr. Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University
  16. No politician photos in Govt Ads - Common cause vs. Union of India
  17. Age determination of rape victim clarified - State of M.P. vs Anoop Singh
  18. Amendment in complaint can be done - S.R.Sukumar vs. S.SunaadRaghuram
  19. Obscene language cannot be allowed against ‘Historically respected personalities’. - Devidas vs. State of Maharashtra
  20. Appointment of Archakas to be made in accordance with Agamas- AdiSaivaSivachariyargalNalaSanga vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
  21. Father of deceased victim has right to appeal.  - Satya Pal Singh v. State of M.P.
  22. Jat reservation held unconstitutional.- Ram Singh vs. Union of India
  23. Concealing pending criminal cases by elected representative illegal.-  Krishnamoorthy vs. Sivakumar
  24. Writs against Judicial actions by judiciary not maintainable.  Riju Prasad Sarma etc. vs. State of Assam
  25. Constitutional validity of Sec 499 IPC (Defamation) The court held that Criminal Defamation law is not unconstitutional  - Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India.
  26. Haji Ali Dargah case- Bombay HC opens Haji Ali Dargah to women -  Dr. Noorjehan Safia Niaz vs. State of Maharashtra.
  27. Plea of Self-defence;- Brij Lal vs. State of Rajasthan
  28. Extra-Judicial Confession; Kala – Chandrakala vs. State through Inspector of Police.
  29. District Judge Selection- Vijay Kumar Mishra vs. High Court of Judicature at Patna.
  30. Upload FIRs in Police Websites - Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union of India.
  31. Multiple Life Sentences will run concurrently, Remission of one will not affect the other [Muthuramalingam vs. state]
  32. Relief Possible against Minors, Women - Hiral P Harsora and ors vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora.
  33. Forcing Husband to Get Separated From His Parents, Amounts To ’Cruelty’ - Narendra vs. K.Meena.
  34. Persons in Govt/Judicial service need not resign to participate in District Judge Selection Process. - Vijay Kumar Mishra and Anr vs High court of Judicature at Patna and Ors.
  35. Public Service Commission shall provide Information about answer sheets and Marks under RTI. -Kerala Public Service Commission vs State Information Commission.
  36. No liquor shops near National Highways - State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. Balu.
  37. National anthem must in Theatres - Shyam Narayan Chouski vs. Union of India.
  38. SC can transfer cases from Jammu & Kashmir Courts to courts outside it and vice versa -Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushpa Sudan.
  39. Upload FIRs in Police Websites., Case - Youth Bar Association of India vs.Union of India.
  40. Multiple Life Sentences will run concurrently, Remission of one will not affect the other. Case - Muthuramalingam vs. State.
  41. 50- SC can transfer cases from Jammu & Kashmir Courts to courts outside it and vice versa.
  42. Relief Possible Against Minors, Women.- Case Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushpa Sudan.
  43. Supreme Court struck down the words “adult male” before the word “person” in Section 2(q) of Domestic Violence Act. Case: - Hiral P Harsora and ors s. KusumNarottamdasHarsora
  44.  Forcing Husband To Get Separated From His Parents, Amounts To ’Cruelty’- Narendra vs. K.Meena
  45. Directions to Curb Female foeticide Case-Voluntary Health Association vs State of Punjab
  46. Persons in Govt/Judicial service need not resign to participate in District Judge Selection Process Case-[ Vijay Kumar Mishra and Anr vs High court of Judicature at Patna To and Ors]
  47. All Tribunals are not necessary parties to the proceedings where legality of its orders challenged- Case  [ S. Kazi vs. Muslim education society]
  48. Public Service Commission shall provide Information about answer sheets and Marks under RTI, Case: [Kerala Public Service Commission vs State Information Commission]
  49. Social Security to the Legal Profession Becomes an Essential Part of Legal System, Case: [Cardamom Marketing Corporation &Anr. Vs. State of Kerala &Ors]-
  50. Landmark guidelines for disaster /drought management., Case (SwarajAbhiyan vs. UOI)
  51. People with disabilities also have the Right to Live with Dignity Case-[JeejaGhosh vs. UOI].
  52. No liquor shops near National Highways.- State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. Balu]
  53. High Court Judges Not Exempt From Airport Frisking- Union of India vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors-
  54. SC issues Guidelines on ‘Appointment of Govt. Lawyers- Case: [State of Punjab vs. Brijeshwar Singh Chahal]
  55.  Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr vs. State of Bihar & Ors- A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar has held that re-promulgation is a fraud on the constitution.
  56.  Resolution against Justice Katju can’t be quashed. Case-Justice Markandey Katju vs. The Lok Sabha- SC refused to quash the March 2015 resolution by both houses of parliament against him for describing Gandhi as a British agent and Netaji as a Japanese Agent .
  57. 65- Cauvery Dispute and SC: Case-State of Karnataka vs. State of Tamil Nadu SC ordered Karnataka to release 15000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu, Later on a plea by state of Karnataka, it was modified to 12000 cusecs.
  58. SC orders NEET. Case-Sankalp Charitable Trust vs. UoI. Supreme Court ordered to conduct the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) 2016 in Two Phases.
  59. Sedition: Direction to authorities Case- Common Cause vs Union of India. Supreme Court of India issued a direction to all the concerned authorities to follow the Constitutional bench judgment in Kedar Nath v State of Bihar (1962) which limited the scope of sedition.
  60. National anthem must in Theatres Case- Shyam Narayan Chouski vs. Union of India
Recent Cases

  1. Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr vs. State of Bihar & Ors Re-promulgation of “Ordinance” is fraud and a subversion of democratic legislative process. Articles 123 and 213. The decision was given by a 7 judge bench of the Supreme Court.
  2. Abhiram Singh vs. C.D. Commachen (Dead) by LRS and Ors. Section 123(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act. Seeking votes on the basis of caste, religion or community amounted to corrupt practices under section 123 of People’s representation Act.
  3. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy vs. Sushil Ansal and Another – Ansal was Sentenced after a long period of judicial determination of his guilt...
  4.  Hussain and Anr. vs. UOI- Supreme Court directed disposal of Bail pleas within one week. Speedy trial is a part of Article 21.
  5. State of Tamilnadu vs. K Balu- There is no fundamental right to carry on business in liquor since as a matter of constitutional doctrine, Article 19(1) (g) does not extend to trade in liquor which is consistently regarded as res extra commercium( a things beyond commerce) .
  6. Deepa vs. Union of India (Reservation for OBC, SC and ST) - OBC SC ST can qualify in general category provided that he/ she has not taken special benefit of reserved category for example- age relaxation or more attempt etc.
  7.  State (through) CBI vs. Sri Kalyan Singh (Former CM of UP) &Ors. - Supreme Court restored criminal conspiracy charges against senior BJP leaders L.K.Adwani, Uma Bharati, Murali Manohar Joshi and 13 Others.
  8.  Pawan kumar vs. State of H.P. Appeal of the convict was dismissed and the court held out Right to reject of woman. SC said a woman has an individual choice which has been legally recognized. It has to be socially respected. No one can compel a women to love. She has absolute right to reject.”
  9. Mukesh and Anr.vs. State for NCT of Delhi- Delhi Nirbhaya Gang Rape Case. Death sentence was upheld.
  10. Suo-Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1 Of 2017 In The Matter Of:- In Re, Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan - The sentence of six months imposed by this Court on Sri Justice C.S. Karnan, shall be executed forthwith, by the Director General of Police, West Bengal, or through a team constituted by him.
  11.  Binoy Viswam vs. UOI - SC upheld constitutional validity of section 139AA of Income Tax Act which made mandatory linkage of IT returns with AADHAAR subject to the outcome of main case related to AADHAAR.
  12.  Bimolangshu Roy(Dead) Through LRs vs. State of Assam vs. Another Assam Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004. Supreme Court declared this Act as unconstitutional. The Court held that Article 194 of the Constitution of India does not expressly authorize the State Legislature to create the office of Parliamentary secretary.
  13.  Rajesh Sharma &Ors vs. State of UP and Anr. - Supreme Court laid down exhaustive guidelines regarding section 498A of IPC, 1860.
  14.  Rakesh kumar Paul vs. State of Assam- Right to get ‘default bail’ under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C..
  15.  Shayara Bano vs.UOI (Triple Talaq Case)- Practice of Triple Talaq is unconstitutional.
  16.  Justice K.S.Puttaswami (Retd.) and Anr. vs. UOI and Ors. (Right to privacy is fundamental rights) - Right to privacy is fundamental rights. In a unanimous decision, a nine-judge Constitution Bench overruled the Judgment in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh Case.
  17.  Independent Thought vs. Union Of India & Anr. (Rape with wife) - Section 375 Exception 2 is arbitrary to Articles 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Now in all cases, sexual intercourse with a women including wife, if she is below the age of 18 years, is rape.
  18. Ms. Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India through Secretary general &Ors- Guidelines/norms for designation of ‘Senior Advocate’ by the Supreme Court and all High Courts of this country were laid down.
  19. . 101st Constitutional Amendment- Goods and Services Tax
  20. Kamini Jaiswal Vs. Union Of India & anr. (Master of Roster) It was held that CJI alone had the power to assign the case to a bench even if there were allegations in the matter against him.
  21. (Prasad Institute of Medical Science, Lucknow Case).
  22.  Dr.S.Rajaseekaran(II) vs.Union of India & Ors.- Guidelines for safety of road accident (1) Road safety policy, (2)State Road Safety Council (3)Load Agency(4)Road Safety Fund(5)Road Safety Action Plan(6)District Road Safety Committee(7)Engineering Improvement(8)Traffic Calming Measures(9)Road Sefty Audit etc. 25 guidelines were laid down.
  23. Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) vs. UOI and Others
  24. Writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25 (Twenty five) lakhs to be deposited by petitioner before the Registry of this Court within six weeks where after said amount shall be transferred to the Supreme Court Bar Association Advocate’ Welfare fund
  25. Ashok Pandey vs. Supreme Court of India Through Its Registrar &Ors. - From an institutional perspective the Chief Justice is placed at the helm of the Supreme Court. In the allocation of cases and the constitution of benches the Chief Justice has an exclusive prerogative. As a repository of constitutional trust, the Chief Justice is an institution in himself.
  26.  Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. (Hadia Case) Akhila converted into Hadiya.- Right to choose is a fundamental rights. SC has restored the marriage of Hadiya with Shafin Jahan, 10 months after the Kerala high court annulled it.
  27.  Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India and Another - Misuse of Public Interest Litigation. PIL has become industry of vested interests.
  28.  CBI vs. Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh (Ram Rahim Case) - Convicted for Rape
  29.  State (ThroughC.B.I.) vs. Shri Lalu Prasad and Anr. Lalu Yadav Case – Convicted for fodder scam.
  30. Salman Case- Blackbuck Poaching Case, Five Years Jail. He was sent to Jodhpur Jail.
  31. . State of Rajasthan vs. Asharam and Anr. (Aasharam Case)- Aasharam was convicted for committing rape of minor.
  32. Navtej singh Johar vs. Union of India- section 377 of IPC which criminalized homosexuality is unconstitutional.
  33. Suresh kaushal vs. union of India- Section 377 is legal and is constitutional
  34. NAAZ Foundation vs. Delhi NCT – Section 377 is unconstitutional and hence has no force. It violates the fundamental rights of a person and is illegal.
Most Important Landmark cases for CLAT 2021 Exam
Here are the most important case laws in Indian Legal History. These all cases are important for upcoming CLAT 2021 exam.
1. Jury decision overturned by High Court (KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra) - 1961
This case is notable for being the last case when a jury trial was held in India. KM Nanavati, a naval officer, murdered his wife's lover, Prem Ahuja. The jury ruled in favour of Nanavati and declared him "not guilty" which was eventually set aside by the Bombay High Court.
2. Amendment masquerades as law  (IC Golaknath v State of Punjab) - 1967
Parliament's prevented from taking away individual rights.
In the highly famous case of Golaknath V State of Punjab in 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights of individuals mentioned in the Constitution. Parliament's overarching ambitions nipped in the bud (Keshavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala) 1973.

3. Elected representatives cannot be given the benefit of doubt.
A highly notable case which introduced the concept of "basic structure" of the constitution of India and declared that those points decided as basic structure could not be amended by the Parliament. The case was triggered by the 42nd Amendment Act.
4. (Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain) - 1975
The trigger that led to the imposition of emergency.
In this landmark case regarding election disputes, the primary issue was the validity of clause 4 of the 39th Amendment Act. The Supreme Court held clause 4 as unconstitutional and void on the ground that it was outright denial of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14. The Supreme Court also added the following features as “basic features” laid down in Keshavananda Bharti case – democracy, judicial review, rule of law and jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32.
5. A step backward for India (ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla Case) - 1976
Widely considered a violation of Fundamental Rights.
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court declared that the rights of citizens to move the court for violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 would remain suspended during emergencies. Triumph of individual liberty (Maneka Gandhi vs UOI) 1978.
6. Parliament limited by itself (Minerva Mills v Union of India) - 1980
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India in 1980 strengthened the doctrine of the basic structure which was propounded earlier in the Keshavananda Bharti Case. Two changes which were made earlier by the 42nd Amendment Act were declared as null and void by the Supreme Court in this particular case.
7. Constitutional validity of individual rights upheld (Waman Rao v Union of India) - 1981
SC ruled that Parliament had transgressed its power of constitutional amendment.
This case was a landmark decision in the constitutional jurisprudence of India. This case has helped in determining a satisfactory method of addressing grievances pertaining to the violation of fundamental rights by creating a fine line of determination between the Acts prior to and after the Keshavananda Bharati case.
8. Maintenance lawsuit sets precedent (Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum) - 1985
Muslim woman Shah Bano won the right to get alimony from her husband.
The petitioner challenged the Muslim personal law. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Shah Bano and granted her alimony. Most favoured it as a secular judgment but it also invoked a strong reaction from the Muslim community, which felt that the judgment was an encroachment on Muslim Sharia law and hence led to the formation of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board in 1973.
9. MC Mehta v Union Of India - 1986
Mounting environment-related concerns.
A PIL filed by MC Mehta in 1986 enlarged the scope and ambit of Article 21 and Article 32 to include the right to healthy and pollution-free environment.
10. Reservation in central government jobs (Indra Sawhney v UOI November) - 1992
Attempt to correct historic injustices constitutionally.
The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court held in this matter that caste could be a factor for identifying backward classes.
11. Wrangle over Supreme Court judge appointments (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association and another versus Union of India) - 1993
The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act and Constitutional amendment Act passed in 2014 aimed at replacing the collegium system of appointing Supreme Court judges. The act was struck down as unconstitutionalby the Supreme Court in October 2015.
12. Power of President's Rule curtailed (SR Bommai v Union of India) - 1994
Persecution of state governments stalled.
This landmark case had major implications on Centre-State relations. Post this case the Supreme Court clearly detailed the limitations within which Article 356 has to function.
13. Foundation for a female workforce (Vishaka v State of Rajasthan) - 1997

Definition of sexual harrassment and guidelines to deal with it laid down.
In this case Vishakha and other women groups filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against State of Rajasthan and Union of India to enforce fundamental rights for working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. This resulted in the introduction of Vishaka Guidelines. The judgment of August 1997 also provided basic definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace and provided guidelines to deal with it. Hence the importance of the case as a landmark judgment.
14. Afzal Guru's death sentence sparked protests – 2002

Shaukat Hussain Guru vs . State (NCT) Delhi and Ors.
Awarded death sentence for role in 2001 Parliament attacks.

Afzal Guru was sentenced to death on February 2013 for his role in the December 2001 attacks on the Indian Parliament. The judgment faced widespread criticism on three grounds – lack of proper defense, lack of primary evidence and judgment based on collective conscience rather than rule of law.
15. State of Tamil Nadu V Suhas Katti - November 2004

Short conviction time of seven months.
This was notable for being the first case involving conviction under the Information Technology Act, 2000. A family friend of a divorced woman was accused of posting her number online on messenger groups which led to her being harassed by multiple lewd messages. The accused was later convicted and sentenced.
16. Rameshwar Prasad v Union Of India - 2005
Dissolution of Bihar Assembly unwarranted.
In this case, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of a notification which ordered dissolution of the legislative Assembly of the state of Bihar. The dissolution had been ordered on the ground that attempts were being made to cobble a majority by illegal means and lay claim to form the government in the state which if continued would lead to tampering with constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court held that the aforementioned notification was unconstitutional.
17. Victims of sexual assault or not? (Om Prakash v Dil Bahar) - 2006

Controversial ruling had many opponents.

The Supreme Court in the above case declared that a rape accused could be convicted on the sole evidence of the victim in spite of medical evidence not proving that it was rape.
18. Jessica Lal Murder Case - December 2006

Sidhartha Vashisht v s. State (NCT of Delhi)
Civil society makes big gains.

A model in New Delhi working as a bartender was shot dead and the prime accused Manu Sharma, son of Congress MP Vinod Sharma who was initially acquitted in February 2006 was later sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2006 by a fast track hearing by the Delhi High Court. On 19 April 2010, the Supreme Court of India approved the sentence.
19. Sanjay Dutt plays prisoner in real life

Sanjay Dutt vs State through C.B.I 1994
Conviction under TADA changed under milder Arms Act.
Well-known actor Sanjay Dutt was sentenced to five year imprisonment by the Supreme Court for illegal weapons possession in a case linked to the 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai. The Supreme Court also cited that the circumstances and nature of offence were too serious for the 53-year-old actor to be released on probation.
20. Nithari serial murders .  Appeal turned down by supreme court

Surendra koli vs State of U.P
Koli was served with multiple death sentences.
A Special Sessions Court awarded death sentence in 2009 to Surinder Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher for the murder of a 14-year-old girl. The murders believed to have been committed through 2006 involved instances of cannibalism. Pandher was later acquitted by the Allahabad High Court and was released on bail but Koli’s death sentence was upheld by both the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.
21. Aarushi Talwar murder – 2008

Rajesh Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.
Verdict delivered under unusual circumstances.
A case which received heavy media attention involved the double murder of 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar and her 45-year-old domestic help in Noida. After five years a Sessions court convicted both her parents Rajesh and Nupur Talwar and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
22. Section 377 case (Naz Foundation v Govt of NCT of Delhi) - July 2009

Cause for rejoicing for homosexuals.

In 2009 the Supreme Court declared Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as unconstitutional. The said section earlier criminalised sexual activities “against the order of nature” which included homosexual acts. This judgment however, was overturned by the Supreme in December, 2013.
23. Meagre closure for controversial Ayodhya (Ayodhya Ram Mandir Babri Masjid Case) - September 2010

Ruled that the land was to be divided into three parts.

The high court of Allahabad had ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid was situated before it was demolished in 1992 shall be divided into three parts. Two-thirds of the land was to be awarded to the Hindu plaintiffs and one-third to the Sunni muslim Waqf board.
24. Vodafone's name cleared in tax battle (Vodafone-Hutchison tax case) - January 2012

Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs.  Union of India (UOI)
Landmark decision on taxability of offshore transactions.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Vodafone in the two-billion-dollar tax case citing that capital gains tax is not applicable to the telecom major. The apex court also said that the Rs 2,500 crore which Vodafone had already paid should be returned with interest.
25. Clean chit to Prime Minister Narendra Modi - 2012

Questions remains and victims of families yet to get closure.
In April 2012 the Supreme Court appointed Special investigation Team (SIT) gave current Prime Minister Narendra Modi a clean chit in the post-Godhra Gulberg massacre case citing that it found no evidence against him. Narendra Modi went on to become the Prime Minister of India with a huge mandate.
26. Mohd Ajmal Amir Kasab v State of Maharashtra - 2012

One of the most high-profile executions in the country.
The Supreme Court observed that the acts on November 26, 2008, had shaken the collective conscience of Indian citizens and had confirmed the death sentence awarded to prime accused Ajmal Kasab by the trial court and affirmed by the Bombay High Court, for waging war against India.
27. NOTA Judgment – 2013

People's Union for Civil Liberties and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
The right to reject candidates formalised.

In 2013, the Supreme Court introduced negative voting as an option for the country’s electorate. According to this judgment an individual would have the option of not voting for any candidate (None-Of-The-Above) if they don’t find any of the candidates worthy.
28. Patent troubles of Pharma company Novartis (Novartis v Union of India & Others) - 2013

Case accused of dealing a death blow to innovation in medicine.

Novartis’ application which covered a beta crystalline form of imatinib, a medicine the company brands as "Glivec", which is very effective against chronic myeloid leukaemia (a common form of cancer) was denied patent protection by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Supreme Court in its ruling upheld the board’s decision which eventually led to the medicine being made available to the general public at a much lower cost.
29. Illegalising convicted MPs and MLAs (Lily Thomas v Union Of India) - July 2013

Effected much-needed cleansing of legislative bodies.
The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, ruled that any member of Parliament (MP), member of the legislative assembly (MLA) or member of a legislative council (MLC) who was convicted of a crime and awarded a minimum of two-year imprisonment, would lose membership of the House with immediate effect.
30. Uphaar fire tragedy (Sushil Ansal vs State Thr CBI) - March 2014

Split judgment couldn't reach a decision on sentencing.

August 2015: Eighteen years after 59 people were killed in a fire in Delhi’s Uphaar cinema, the Supreme Court held that the prime accused did not necessarily need to go back to jail as they were fairly aged. The court further held that “ends of justice would meet” if the accused paid Rs 30 crore each as fine.
31. Nirbhaya case shook the nation - March 2014

State vs Ram Singh and Ors.
Judiciary spurred into action and laws were strengthened for sex offenders.

Four out of the five accused in the horrific gang-rape case of Nirbhaya were convicted and given the death sentence. The case also resulted in the introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 which provides for the amendment of the definition of rape under Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973; the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
32. Recognising the Third gender (National Legal Services Authority v Union of India) - April 2014

In a landmark judgment the Supreme Court in April, 2014 recognised transgender persons as a third gender and ordered the government to treat them as minorities and extend reservations in jobs, education and other amenities.
33. Section 66A struck down (Shreya Singhal v Union of India) - March 2015

Cracking down on "offensive" online content not easy.
Controversial section 66A of the Information Technology Act which allowed arrests for objectionable content posted on the internet was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in March 2015.
34. Yakub Memon sentenced to death (Yakub Abdul Razak Memon V State of Maharashtra and Anr) - July 2015
No reprieve for the accused in 1993 Mumbai serial blasts.
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon was convicted and sentenced to execution by hanging in March 2015 for his involvement in the 1993 Bombay serial blasts. His conviction sparked a nationwide debate on capital punishment in India.
35. Dance bars functional again

Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors
After a gap of two decades, dance bars open.

The Supreme Court in July 2013 passed a judgment directing the state government to reopen dance bars in Maharashtra which had earlier been banned under the Maharashtra Police Act. The resultant ban by the Bombay High Court was stayed.