Top 10 Landmark Supreme Court Judgments Every Law Student Must Know (2025 Guide)

 

Landmark Supreme Court Judgements

Law is a live reality that is influenced daily by court rulings; it is not only a body of texts.  Knowing important rulings is like having a map of India's legal system in your hands as a law student.  These rulings are a reflection of judicial innovation, social justice development, and constitutional ideals.  With important takeaways for tests and practical application, we simplify the Top 10 Supreme Court rulings that every aspiring lawyer needs to be aware of in this article.

Top 10 Landmark Supreme Court Judgments Every Law Student Must Know

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Facts 

This case questioned the validity of constitutional amendments made by the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments. Kesavananda Bharati, a spiritual leader from Kerala, brought a lawsuit against state land reform laws that impacted the property of his organization (Mathh).

Issues :

Is Parliament permitted to amend any aspect of the Constitution?

Are there any boundaries to its authority?

Judgement :

The Supreme Court decided that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot modify its "Basic Structure." 

This established the well-known Basic Structure Doctrine — a crucial limit that Parliament is not allowed to breach.

Main Point:

Basic rights, such as secularism, democracy, and the rule of law, are protected from being altered by constitutional amendments.

2. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978)

Fact :

Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded (seize ) by the airport authorities (government) without giving her a proper reason.

Issue:

Where this act of Airport Authorities was valid?

What is the true meaning of "personal liberty" under Article 21?

 

Judgment:

The Supreme Court expanded the meaning of Article 21 and said airport authorities comes under the definition of state.

It ruled that any law affecting life and liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary.

Main Point:

Article 21 now protects multiple rights like the right to travel, right to privacy, and more.

3. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)

Facts:

Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim woman, was thrown out from her home where she married and hence she sought maintenance from her husband after divorce.

Issue:

Can Muslim women claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC? 

(Muslim women was not used to get maintainence at that time, their religion did not mention any type of this thing )

Judgment:

The Court held that Section 125 CrPC applies to all, irrespective of religion.

Thus, Shah Bano was entitled to maintenance.

Main Point:

The judgment was a victory for women's rights, though later diluted by political pressure.

4. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Facts:

The Mandal Commission recommended 27% reservations for OBCs in government jobs.

Indra Sawhney raised concern about the implementation of the Mandal Commission's recommendations. They argued that reservtion based on caste were inconsistent with the principles of equality and non - discrimination.

Issue:

Is reservation beyond 50% Valid?

Can the government use economic criteria for backwardness?

Judgment:

The Court upheld OBC reservations but imposed a 50% ceiling rule.

It also allowed the concept of the "creamy layer" — rich among backward classes can't claim reservation.

Main Point:

Equality and affirmative action must balance each other.

5. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

Facts:

Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan was gang-raped by 5 men (Gujjar Family) in front of her husband for stopping child marriage. The Police was not lodging FIR due to the influence of the Gujjar Family. Trial court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence.

Issue:

Are there any legal protections against sexual harassment at the workplace?

Judgment:

The Court issued Vishaka Guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplaces until Parliament passed a law.

Main Point:

This case laid the foundation for the POSH Act, 2013 (Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act).

6. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Facts:

The case dealt with the misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule) in Indian states.

S.R. Bommai served as the Chief Minister of Karnataka from August 1988 to April 1989 until President's Rule was enacted under Article 356. The Governor indicated that ministers had withdrawn their support, resulting in the government's dismissal without conducting a floor test. Bommai contested the proclamation in the Karnataka High Court, which ruled against him, affirming the legitimacy of the Governor's satisfaction. The matter progressed to the Supreme Court alongside similar cases from Meghalaya, Nagaland, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh, for a conclusive judgment by a nine-judge panel.

Issue:

How and when can President’s Rule be imposed?

Judgment:

The Court ruled that President’s Rule must be justified and subject to judicial review.

Main Points:

Federalism is a part of the Basic Structure, and misuse of central power is prohibited.

7. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

Facts:

This case challenged Section 377 IPC, which criminalized homosexual activities.

Issue:

Does criminalizing homosexuality violate fundamental rights?

Judgment:

The Supreme Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts among adults.

Main Pont:

The judgment celebrated human dignity, privacy, and equality.

8.K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

Facts:

The case questioned the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and other government surveillance projects.

Issue:

Is the right to privacy a fundamental right?

Judgment:

The Court unanimously ruled that Right to Privacy is protected under Article 21.

Main Point:

This ruling strengthened individual freedom against state interference.

9. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

Facts:

States often put laws in the Ninth Schedule to protect them from judicial review.

Issue:

Can laws under the Ninth Schedule be challenged?

Judgment:

The Court held that even laws under the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they violate the Basic Structure.

Main Point:

Parliament cannot hide unconstitutional laws under the Ninth Schedule.

10. LGBT Rights (NALSA v. Union of India, 2014)

Facts:

Transgenders faced systemic discrimination and were legally invisible.

Issue:

Do transgender people have constitutional rights?

Judgment:

The Court recognized transgenders as the "third gender" and upheld their rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.

Main Point:

The judgment ensured dignity, identity, and equality for the transgender community.

These Landmark Supreme Court Judgements have not only influenced Indian legislation but also the essence of Indian democracy. For every student of law, grasping these cases is crucial — it’s not just recommended, it’s necessary. They provide valuable understanding of how constitutional principles such as equality, freedom, and justice are upheld and have progressed. Whether you are studying for exams or embarking on a legal career, these cases form your foundational blocks. 

Keep in mind: The law is ever-evolving, and each ruling serves as a valuable lesson in justice, empathy, and bravery.

Which judgment inspired you the most? Tell us in the comments below! And don't forget to share this article with your law school friends.

READ ALSO - https://lawyush.blogspot.com/2023/08/doctrine-of-perspective-overruling.html