Guide on Supreme Court Judgements to ACE Indian Polity for UPSC CSE

.

Your UPSC CSE preparation is incomplete without Supreme Court Judgements.

But most blogs limited to KSB, Minerva, or IC Coelha, which the Laxmikant covers.

In this holistic blog, you get the LATEST & RELEVANT judgements linked with Current Affairs. Beyond Laxmikant to outrank your competition.💪🏻

In A table format for a quick read. Let’s dive in. 😀

Federal Structure

Dr Pradeep Jain Vs Union of India [SC Verdict, 1984]

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
There is only one domicile which is the union of India. SC denounced recognizing domicile at the state-level.	Reason: Under Article 1, India is a Union of States where every state is inseparable.	Post bifurcation of Andhra state, the state can’t deny civil servants’ right to serve in Andhra Pradesh or Telangana.

SR Bommai Case (SC Verdict, 1994)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC Held: 1. Centre to invoke Article 356 only after it exhausted all the necessary constitutional means. 2. Should show a certain degree of evidence that stalemate has arrived between center-and-state AND constitutional-machinery breakdown in the state. 3. Added ingredients of Basic structure: a. Social Justice b. Federalism c. Unity and Integrity of Nation	As Federalism is a part of the Basic structure of the Constitution.

Mohit Mineral Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (SC Verdict, 2022)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
Honourable SC held that GST council decisions are NOT binding on the state or union government. Article 279A(4) the recommendations shall be seen as “suggestions/persuasion”.		Issue: If every state resorts to different GST rates, then essence of the GST council will collapse.	The Centre’s recent Parliament reply that GST council decisions are mandatory for both Union and state. Becoming a contentious point between Executive-Judiciary. Note: No appeal/review petition has been filed. Note: Since conflicting stance, so UPSC will avoid asking such.

Parliament and State Legislature: Conduct of business

Nabam Rebia Case (SC Verdict, 2016) [Anti-defection; Role of Governor]

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held: 1. Governor do not enjoy power of the discretion to summon / dissolve the house / decide agenda (under Article 174) against the wishes of CM; it enjoys “some” discretion around executive actions (under Article 163). 2. Reiterated Governor’s discretion is within the ambit of Judicial Review. 3. SC held Speaker can’t disqualify any member provided his disqualification pending before the house (under Article 179).			Honorable SC faced the same constitutional question in Shiv Sena vs Uddhav Thakrey case, referred the Nebam Rebia case to the 7-judge bench. Presently, the matter is at sub-judice.

Parliament and State Legislature: Privileges

Ashish Shelar Vs Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (SC Verdict, 2022)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held MLA can’t be suspended beyond 59 days.	As suspending MLA beyond reasonable time would result in a constituency becoming unrepresented. Rational for 59 days selected –> would otherwise trigger the vacancy of MLA seat under Article 190(4).	1. Bringing reasonable restriction on Powers of Speaker. 2. Ensuring representative democracy.

Kerala MLA Case (SC Verdict, 2021)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC made crucial observations: 1. Privileges bear a functional relationship with the discharge of duties of legislators. 2. Seeking exemption from criminal law (like vandalism of public property) under the shade of privileges will be a breach of public trust. 3. Politicians have a right to protest inside the House (Assembly/Parliament).		The judgment strengthened the principles of accountability. Furthermore, subtle deviation from the Narsimha Rao Case (1998). In that case, SC held “any” in 105/194 have wide connotations (MP/MLAs allowed to perform any activity including taking bribes to vote in the House). Present Issue: House have ultimate right to conduct the proceedings and punish for the contempt (as per Rules of Business and Conduct). Very tiny accountability. No code on Parliamentary Privileges made yet.

Parliament and State Legislature: Powers and issues

RK Garg Case (SC Verdict, 1981) [Ordinance]

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held: 1. Ordinance promulgation is an ‘executive’ power NOT legislative. 2. Would invite restrictions of executive: reasonableness, Public Interest, and bar on contravention of Ingredients in Part III [due to Article 13(2)]		Becoming the precedent for future cases to follow on Ordinance. The case reduced the rate of Ordinance significantly. Erstwhile, President issued 679 (1950-2014) which was 10.5/year. Now it is 41 (2014-2021) = 5/year.

DC Wadhwa Case (SC Verdict, 1987) [Re-promulgation of Ordinance Case]

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held: 1. Re-promulgation (repeating the same ordinance) is a FRAUD ON THE CONSTITUTION. 2. SC expanded the ambit and mandated the “ingredient of urgency” required to promulgate ordinance.

Parliament and State Legislature: Functioning [Governor]

Jammu & Kashmir Case (SC Verdict, 1997)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
If Governor is appointed as a chancellor of state university, i.e., working beyond the constitutional mandate –> not required to seek advice from Council of Ministers in such matters.		Governor occupying the Chancellor office is a colonial legacy. Becoming another bone of contention between Centre-State (esp., in Kerala, West Bengal). Note: Punchhi Commission recommended Governor should limit himself with the constitutional mandate only.

Bejoy Cotton Mills Case (SC Verdict, 1967)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC observed: 1. Governor in the constitution shall be interpreted as Governor in the aid and advice of council of ministers (CoM). 2. Real executive powers lies with CoM not with Governor or President.		The case acted as a precedent in deducing the Governor’s interference or preventing him from acting like a State’s agent

BP Singhal Case (SC Verdict, 2010)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC issued guidelines on removing the governor: 1. Governor’s dismissal is subject to Judicial Review. 2. Governor (a constitutional position) can’t be removed arbitrarily or with unjust intent. 3. Mere deviance from the Centre’s position shall not be a ground to remove the Governor. 4. Governor shall resume his office, if able to show unreasonableness in his dismissal.	A reasonable security of tenure is a must to preserve the sanctity of the Constitutional Head.	Venkatachalliah Commission: recommended the Centre to seek the Chief Minister’s advice on the removal of Governor.

Separation of Powers

Rahul Gandhi Case (SC Verdict, 2011)

Note: Here Rahul Gandhi is the Madras Bar Association President (not the one who comes into your mind :P).

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held: 1. ONLY HC judge OR District Magistrate who served for 5 years OR Lawyer practiced for 10 years will be considered for Tribunal members. 2. Furthermore, Group A ‘administrative officers’ are barred holding judicial posts.	As judicial independence is a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. [Above, was said in Second Judges Case, 1993].	Government proposition is Tribunals (like Central Administrative Tribunal), administrative professionals be given representation. Causing Judiciary-Centre deadlock. Fracturing the future appointments of Tribunals.

Functioning of Judiciary

Central Board of Dawdi Bohra Case (SC Verdict, 2004)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC Held: 1. The law laid down by the Court via Bench of ‘larger’ strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser strength. 2. A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree from the view taken by a Bench of the larger quorum. In case of doubt, Bench of lesser quorum can invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for ‘hearing before a Bench of larger quorum’ (than the Bench whose decision has come up for consideration). 3. But before hearing, listing of the matter shall be decided by a ‘Bench of co-equal strength’ to express an opinion doubting the correctness of the view taken by the earlier Bench. Aftermath, the matter may be placed for hearing.	Indian Courts following USA’s judicial convention. It’s further mentioned in Article 145 (5).	Issue–> 4:3 decision prevails over 0:5. Despite the later bench, larger judges deviated/dissented from the former (larger) bench view.	Recently, Honourable SC reiterated the stance.

Vineet Narayan Case (1997) [Judicial Activism]

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC devised ‘Continuing Mandamus’.	SC derives such powers from Article 142(2). Mandamus Writ means issuing direction to the authority (mostly lower courts) to ensure the duty’s sanctity. Continuing Mandamus means when the investigation under a ‘continuous’ scrutiny of the judiciary.	Fun Fact: It’s the same case where SC held, “CBI is a caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice”. 😟

Lok Prahari Vs Union of India (SC Verdict, 2017)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC issued 5 trigger points to appoint retired HC judges (under Article 224A): 1. When judges vacancies > 20% 2. Cases backlog > 10% 3. Pending cases from 5 years. 4. Historically the case disposal rate is poor. 5. Last 1 year the case disposal rate is poor (showing judge is over-burdened with a flurry of litigations). Furthermore, SC ordered every HC to create a panel of willing judges to serve post-retirement. SC held such judges to have a security of tenure of 2-3 years. And not more than 5 retired judges be appointed. SC reiterated, the Chief Justice of HC to seek prior approval of the President to appoint retired judges.		Till now, Article 22A used only thrice. Such guidelines, promises to appoint retired judges more frequently. Benefit: Article 224A inserted as our leaders apprehended the vast wisdom retired judges possess. Involving them to resolve complex and long-standing pending cases. Present Issue: Unlike Permanent Judges of HC, Ad hoc judges don’t enjoy constitutional protection on tenure; works as per the doctrine of pleasure. Owing this, SC prevented additional judges to adjudicate election petitions (Prakash Chandra Case, 1974) and Criminal court cases (contravention of Article 21; SC Verdict, 1978).

Alapan Bandopadhyay Case (SC Verdict, 2022)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC Held: Appellate Tribunals cases (like NCLAT, SAT) to be challenged before the HC (whose territorial limits envelopes that tribunal).	The writ jurisdiction of High Courts is a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution [Chandra Case (SC Verdict, 1997)].	As HC is the ground for judges to hone skills, handling diverse cases, and becoming apt to hold the apex court position. Skipping HC to approach SC would hamper future judges’ quality.

SP Velimani Vs Aropper Case (SC Verdict, 2022)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC criticized the sealed cover jurisdiction. SC held that only the portion which is sensitive in nature be placed before sealed cover, rest presented on the affidavit.	Done to promote the Right to Fair Trial (under Article 21).

Victoria Gowri Appointment Case (SC Verdict, 2023)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
Honourable SC dealt with “eligibility vs suitability” of a candidate for HC judge: Article 217 only provides the eligibility (or minimum qualification) for an HC judge. This is under judicial review. While ‘suitability’ of a candidate is decided by Collegium based on certain information. Such information is NOT a part of judicial review.	Information used to decide suitability is not under JR to protect the Right to Privacy (Fourth Judges Case).	IMP for UPSC CSE Prelims. They may ask… ‘suitability’ for an HC judge is mentioned in the constitution or within the Judicial Review –> NO

Constitutional Bodies

SC Verdict, 1996

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
Held NCSC is empowered only to investigate around the complaints NOT to pass in-juncture (restraining orders) against entities.

Anoop Baranwal Vs Union of India (SC Verdict, 2022)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
The constitution bench of SC held: 1. To constitute the High-Powered Committee (Leader of Opposition-CJI-PM) to appoint Election Commission members [as advised by the Goswami Committee and the Law Commission]. 2. The judgment shall remain in effect until the parliament prescribes the appointment procedure by law [as given under Article 324(2)]. 3. Present scheme of sole executive privilege to appoint CEC is unconstitutional.	Since free and fair elections is a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution [Indira Gandhi Vs Raj Narain Case (SC Verdict, 1975)] + realizing the present constitutional scheme inadequate to secure independence of ECI, so Supreme court filled the gap.		Way Forward: Centre to bring a legislation to codify the said ruling.

Statutory Bodies

Vijay Mandal Chaudhary Vs Union of India Case (SC Verdict, 2022)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held: 1. Upheld the powers conferred to Enforcement Directorate. 2. Denounced the objections of self-incrimination and violation of Article 20 owing to the gravity of offence –> Money Laundering (threat to National Security).	India argued strict laws needed (like interrogation as admissible evidence, self-incrimination, longer custody, special courts) as India is signatory of UN’s Convention Against Trans-national Organized Crime.	1. ED cases increased to 27x from 2014-21 against 2004-13. 2. Total 5,500 cases registered. 3. Brought recovery of 1.05 Lakh crore. Present Issue: Conviction of ONLY 23	Recently, SC agreed to review her judgement. Presently, matter is at sub-judice.

Role of Civil Services

Kushal Kishore Vs UP Case [SC Verdict, 2022]

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC Held: “No additional restrictions be framed beyond Article 19(2) against public functionaries. A mere statement of the minister doesn’t attribute vicariously to the government under collective responsibility”. Court further held, “If individual/group aggrieved by statements of public functionaries, may seek civil remedies; not maintainable under Article 32/226.“ Court observed, “Government may legislate code of conduct to design additional restrictions for public functionaries” under Article 309.		Court explained the difference between Vicarious liability & Collective responsibility of Council of Ministers. Observations are important considering Public servants are barred to criticize government schemes/decisions [Added restriction].

Prakash Singh Case (SC Verdict, 2006)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC issued series of guidelines: 1. Mandated DGP/IG to have 6 months before superannuation. 2. Security of tenure of atleast 2 years. 3. State Government to prepare list (of suitable candidates for DGP) 3 months prior to present DGP tenure completion. 4. Nullify the concept of ‘acting’ DGP. 5. Involving of UPSC in the appointment. 6. DGP shall be removed/suspended ONLY after the recommendation of the State security commission.		1. To bring independency in higher police administrative posts. 2. Involving UPSC will deduce politicizing police appointments.	Presently, UP has appointed an ‘acting’ DGP, in-contravention of the SC guidelines. The Matter is at sub-judice.

Rights Issues

State of Assam Case (SC Verdict, 2023)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
FIR is a document whose purpose is a ‘mere’ collection of first-hand information from the aggrieved party & substance to initiate investigation. It CANNOT be considered as evidence.		IMP for UPSC CSE Prelims. UPSC asking 2-3 questions (since 2019) on criminal procedure, functioning of the bar council, or principles of law.

Animal Welfare Board Vs A. Nagaraja Case (SC Verdict, 2014)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held the ‘person’ in Article 21 includes ‘animal life’.	Reason: In an inter-connected ecosystem, protecting animal life will symbiotically safeguard human life.	Conserving Animal Life is given under: 1. DPSP (Article 48A) 2. Fundamental Duties (Article 51A) 3. Fundamental Rights (Article 21). IMP for UPSC CSE Prelims	The case was referred in Jallikattu Case, 2023 (mentioned below)

Jallikattu Case (SC Verdict, 2023)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC Upheld & Recognized Jallikattu, a bovine sport, intrinsic to Tamil Nadu’s culture; granted the right to practice/perform under Article 29. Maintained the bovine safeguards should be in accordance with the Conduct of Jallikattu Rules, 2017 (like safe passage, resting interim). Considering animal lives are protected within the bounds of Article 21.	SC striking a balance of Article 29 (right to conserve culture) and Article 21 (right to life). For this, they used Doctrine of Harmonious Construction.	Will maintain Jalikattu sports to conduct annually.

SC Verdict, 2022 on UAPA

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held: 1. Violation of speedy trial is a ground for constitutional courts to grant bail in UAPA cases. 2. ‘Mere association’ in the terrorism/radical groups can’t invoke UAPA arrests. For this, authorities have to prove the involvement (or intent to involve) of individual in the crimes. Failure to showcase such involvement, constitutional courts can provide bail. 3. District Magistrates have no right to extend the UAPA investigation (beyond 90 days). For such issuance, only constitutional courts can grant. If not provided, then court may grant bail to the aggrieved party.	Striking balance between Section 43D (preventing grant of bail) and Article 21 (Right to Bail).	Issue: 4,690 arrests (since 2018) under UAPA while abysmal conviction rate of 3.17%.

Kanwar Yatra Case (SC Verdict, 2021)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held religious sentiments are subservient (lesser important) to the Right to Health and Life.	Striking balance between Article 25 (Right to profess Religion) Vs Article 21 (Right to health).

Md. Latif Vs J&K Case (SC Verdict, 2022)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held that life under Article 21 is not limited to alive; remedies (like dignified cremation) available to a dead body.		SC used this principle to legalize Euthanasia [Aruna Shanbaug Case] and Jain’s ritual of Sallekhana (fasting unto death). IMP for UPSC CSE prelims.

Babita Punia Case (SC Verdict, 2021)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC upheld women’s right to enter into Army via NDA exam. SC mandated to establish permanent service commission for women.	Right to public employment given under Article 15,16.	IMP for UPSC CSE Prelims.

Hussainara Khatoon Case, 1978

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC observed the Speedy trial within the ambit of Article 21. SC devised Public Interest Litigation.		IMP for UPPSC Prelims or State PCS

Indian Young Laywers Vs State of Kerala (SC Verdict, 2018)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
Honourable SC held barring menstrual women to enter into temple amounts to Untouchability.		The case expanded the wisdom given under Article 17 (Prohibition on Untouchability). Highlights the disability faced from such prohibition not limited to certain caste viz-a-viz for genders too.

Kerala Union of Working Journalists Vs Union of India, 2021

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC Held: individual under-trial is also covered under the Right to life. Thereby, individual shall be eligible to receive healthcare until becomes fit, then he/she shall be shifted back to jail.		Since 70.9% of prisoners are under-trial, will help protecting their FR.

Indian Constitution: Significant Provisions & Features

Indian Express Case Vs Union of India (SC Verdict, 1984)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held: Levying Customs Duty on the printing press is just. The taxes levied shall be reasonable otherwise vitiate the concept of free speech.	SC noted that customs (even though not mentioned under reasonable restriction) is justified because State levying taxes is an accepted convention across the globe. SC used America’s taxation laws in the printing press to supplement their verdict.

R Rajagopal Vs Tamil Nadu Case (SC Verdict, 1994)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
When the matter is submitted on public record, then privacy no longer subsists. It becomes a legitimate topic for public debate and publication.	Striking balance between Right to Information Vs Right to Privacy.

Olga Telis Vs State of Maharashtra Case (SC Verdict, 1985)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held: 1. Article 21 includes the Right to Livelihood. 2. Eviction is allowed if the due procedure established by law is followed. 3. If people living in slums > 20 years, then can’t be displaced unless for the larger public interest. Else eviction is required, then the State is compelled to provide an equitable resettlement (as the person’s livelihood is hampered).	Supreme Court held that a person living in slum not because of criminal intimidation but due to meagre sources to survive.	With subsequent developments, SC used this case to integrate the ‘right to reasonable shelter’ under Article 21 (SC Verdict, 1995). Note: Right to Shelter != Right to Government Accommodation (like guest house, compartments, etc). Later, is limited with government discretion. Present Issue: Owing to a liberal interpretation of Article 21, Indian Railways’s 782ha land been encroached.	SC is presently hearing an eviction case in Uttrakhand where residents encroached the Railways Property. In the backdrop of bulldozer drives in UP: Eviction is legal since it’s done in the due accordance of law.

Puttarswamy Case (SC Verdict, 2017)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC observed: 1. Right to Privacy under Article 21. 2. Right to forgotten under Article 21. Right to be forgotten will come with reasonable restrictions: 1. Information is of legal in nature. 2. Having certain evidence value. 3. Around larger public interest. 4. Information has scientific relevance.	Striking balance between the Right to Forgotten Vs the Right to Privacy	IMP for UPSC CSE Mains. Note: Students generally remember Right to Privacy, but ‘forget’ to note the Right to be forgotten (yeh lolz) was also declared in the same verdict.

Ramlila Maidan Case (SC Verdict, 2012)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
Honourable SC held, Right to peaceful protest is A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT of every citizen; can’t be deprived by arbitrary executive actions.	Protest is nowhere mentioned in the constitution BUT derives meaning from the ‘Right to peaceful assembly’ and a ‘form of expression’	IMP for UPSC CSE Prelims. They may ask… Right to Protest is a fundamental right –> YES. Right to strike is a fundamental right –> NO [Later is not, it comes from Industrial Disputes Act not from the Part III of the Constitution]

Farm Protest Case (SC Verdict, 2021)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held: 1. Farmers have an inalienable right to protest. 2. BUT protesters cannot occupy the public space/property ‘indefinitely’. As it inadvertently subverts others’ fundamental rights (like right to move freely).	Striking balance between Protestor’s rights and normal citizen’s rights.

SC Verdict, 2002

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held Lawyers can’t claim the right to strike (like abandoning the courts) as it fractures the client/litigant’s right to seek judicial remedy.	Striking balance between Article 19 and Article 21.	Previously, SC held Group A officials (like IAS/IPS) under Civil Service Rules AND Telecom officials don’t enjoy right to strike under Telegraph Act -> both due to threat/prejudice to national security.	Honourable Madras HC reiterated the stance in 2022 (Madras Lawyers’ strike case). Moreover noted, any loss to litigant, the lawyer solely shall be responsible. The case helped Madras HC devising a committee to address lawyer’s grievances with judiciary amicably.

Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India (SC Verdict, 1978)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held: 1. Fundamental Rights are not mutually exclusive. 2. Constitution of India does offer due process of law –> harmony of Article 14, 19, and 21. Every law required to pass this harmony test. 3. Reiterated the individual’s right to travel abroad (under Article 21).		The case today is also known as Personal Liberty Case.

Issues relating to management of Social services

SC Verdict 2022 on Educational Trusts

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held: 1. Entities (like trusts, schools, universities) providing education would be able to avail tax exemption ONLY for the activities “solely” relating to education or incidental to such educational activities. E.g., operation costs in running classes (direct activity), bus service or selling textbooks (incidental activity) both can avail tax exemption. 2. Activities which are NOT related to main education (like after-class vocational training, coaching classes or one-off workshops) wouldn’t claim tax exemption. 3. Furthermore, ONLY those entities having all the necessary ingredients to impart education can avail the tax benefits.	The Honourable SC maintained that education in India to be done as part of ‘Charity’ not profit-seeking business.	Since, Tax exemption be availed ONLY by institutes having all necessary requirements (to impart education), will substantially upgrade the present education facilities. Else barred from tax exemptions.

Transparency and Accountability

SC Verdict, 2020

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held: 1. All the central agencies (like SFIO, ED, NIA, CBI) who conduct interrogation shall have the mandatory CCTV installation. 2. Agencies are required to keep the video recording for 6 months. 3. Furthermore, establish an oversight committee to scrutinize such installations and working of CCTV. 4. Appropriate awareness to individuals on CCTV and budget for maintenance. 5. Interrogated individuals have the right to procure the video recordings. 6. Not complying with orders, the individuals have the liberty to complain to SHRC/NHRC.			By May 2023, SC observed only 4 regions (Goa, Meghalaya, A&N, and Ladakh) have complied with the order.

Right to Information

Jayantilal Mistry Vs RBI (SC Verdict, 2022)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
When RBI (or any entity) performs an official duty and prepares the report, then such report be part of public domain. Shall be produced under RTI Act.	Public authority is responsible to bring accountability. Publishing such a report will complement his tasks.	1. Furthering the essence of RTI. 2. Strengthening Public accountability.

Role of NGOs

Noel Herper Vs Union of India Case (SC Verdict, 2022)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC upheld the amendments of FCRA and the Union’s right to cancel the NGO’s license.		Impact: Since 2011, the registration of 20,664 associations was cancelled for violations such as non-submission of mandatory annual returns and diversion of foreign funds for other purposes. Issue: Since 2017, cancellations of NGO registrations have increased.	Popular Front of India was involved in targeted killings, terrorism and its financing under the garb of NGO until banned in 2022.

Environmental Conservation

SC Verdict, 2023

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC modified the verdict passed on 2022 in the ESZ case. Lifted the complete ban + allowed the development works based on MoEF&CC 2022 guidelines. Mandated the prohibition of mining activities within the ESZ (1km of NP/WLS). ESZ = Ecological Sensitive Zones	SC held in 2021, Environment Protection cannot supersede essentiality of the economic activities and the right to livelihood.	The complete ban on ESZ can be used as an example of Judicial overreach.

Environmental Pollution and Degradation

MC Mehta Case [SC Verdict, 1987]

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
Honourable SC applied: A) Principle of Absolute Liability. B) Epistolary Jurisdiction.	A) Principle of Absolute Liability: Two essential ingredients to apply the above principle: Enterprise for profit. Possessing hazardous substance/activity/process. Liable to pay; no exemption of Act of God. B) Epistolary Jurisdiction: SC held a letter written by an individual to judge (expressing his grievance) can be considered as a Writ petition.	The case is considered to be the cornerstone in Environmental Jurisdiction. The case become the first step towards constituting National Green Tribunal. The anecdotes of this case reiterated in Union Carbide Case aka Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case, 1989.	Recently, SC took suo motu actions based on a letter by Retired Employees Association.

Union Carbide Vs Union of India OR Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case (SC Verdict, 1989)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
Honourable SC ordered Union Carbide to pay 750cr as compensation. This is the all-time highest compensation ordered.	SC applied absolute liability principle. Since methyl isocyanate, a toxic gas, remains in the atmosphere for a longtime –> causing deformities to new born. Company required to pay inter-generational compensations.	Example of Curative Petition. Despite till date no one knows how this leakage happened + fault of Madhya Pradesh government on not swiftly vacating the spot, Supreme Court took the humane approach. Ensuring just compensation.	Why I’m telling you this? Recently, SC heard petitions of BGT victims.

Representation of the People’s Act

Anugrah Narayan Vs Union of India (SC Verdict, 2022)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held that producing false educational qualifications shall NOT amount to corrupt election practices.	Court reasoned that no one in India votes for the candidate based on his educational qualification.

S. Balaji Vs State of Tamil Nadu (SC Verdict, 2013)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC held the electoral promises (be it promising freebies, exemptions) to lure voters shall NOT amount to corrupt practices.		Issue: Resulted in a culture of promising loads of freebies like free electricity, subsidized diesel to farmers, subsidized ration, etc. Thereby, India’s fiscal deficit catapulted from 4% of GDP (FY05) to 6.4% of GDP (FY23).	SC agreed to review the said verdict. Presently, the matter is at sub-judice.

Issues relating to intellectual

Novartis Vs Union of India Case (SC Verdict, 1997)

Rulings and Underpinnings	Rationality behind the judgement	Significance	Current Affair Updates
SC upheld Section 3 of Indian Patent Act –> prohibition on the ever-greening of patents. To maintain patent rights, pharma entity to create the drug such ‘enhancing therapeutic efficiency significantly’ (when disease remedy is known). Thereby, substantial change in the fundamental base molecule is imminent to qualify for patent renewal.	Done to prevent arbitrary ever-greening of patent	1. Will facilitate the affordability of drugs. 2. National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) is empowered to enforce controlled drug prices where patent has expired.

Note: At few spots, I intentionally omitted the ‘rationality behind the judgement column’ because: some based on doctrine of constitutional morality (like DC Wadhwa case), a portion of cases are at sub-judice (like ED case), or a handful of cases we all just need to route learn (like Maneka Gandhi case).

What’s Next:

After reading the 50 Supreme Court Judgements for UPSC, consider bookmarking it. I’ll be keep stuffing the current affairs segment… So you don’t have to.

Wanna hone your answer writing skills? Here’s the juicy writing post –> Neville Medhora Book Review (writing secrets inside).😎

Share your feedback (open for criticisms too) or Suggest any important case (which I missed) on Instagram or LinkedIn.