Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):

• This landmark case dealt with reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of reservations but imposed a cap of 50%, emphasizing that caste alone cannot be the sole criterion for backwardness.

Mc Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996):

• Addressed environmental pollution caused by industries in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court held that the right to clean environment is part of the right to life under Article 21 and imposed strict regulations on industries violating environmental norms.

ARTICLE 15 (PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF RELIGION, RACE, CASTE, SEX OR PLACE OF BIRTH)

State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976):

• Interpreted Article 15(4), which allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. The Supreme Court emphasized that reservations should aim at achieving genuine social upliftment without perpetuating casteism.

ARTICLE 16 (EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN MATTERS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT)

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006):

• Addressed the constitutional validity of reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Article 16(4). The Supreme Court upheld the validity of creamy layer exclusion and emphasized that reservations in promotions should not breach the ceiling limit of 50%.

ARTICLE 17 (ABOLITION OF UNTOUCHABILITY)

State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale (1993):

• Dealt with the practice of untouchability and the enforcement of laws prohibiting it under Article 17. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the commitment to eradicate untouchability and protect vulnerable communities.

ARTICLE 19 (RIGHT TO FREEDOM)

State of Madras v. V.G. Row (1952):

• This case dealt with the scope of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression includes the right to criticize the government and its policies, subject to reasonable restrictions.

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

• Although primarily about federalism (Article 356), this case also touched upon freedom of association under Article 19(1)(c). The Supreme Court held that political parties have the freedom to associate or disassociate with any ideology or cause, protected under Article 19(1)(c).

T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002):

• Involved the regulation of admissions to private educational institutions. The Supreme Court upheld the autonomy of private educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) while recognizing the need for regulation to ensure educational standards and social justice.

ARTICLE 21 (RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY)

Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):

• Provided an early interpretation of Article 21 regarding personal liberty. The Supreme Court held that the scope of Article 21 is narrow and does not include rights beyond physical restraint.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):

• Expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include procedural due process. The Supreme Court held that the right to life and personal liberty includes the right to be heard and the right to fair procedure.

Mc Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996):

• Reiterated the right to clean environment as part of Article 21, emphasizing environmental protection as integral to the right to life and personal liberty.

ARTICLE 21A (RIGHT TO EDUCATION)

Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993):

• Interpreted Article 21A, which guarantees the right to free and compulsory education to children between the ages of 6 and 14 years. The Supreme Court held that the right to education is a fundamental right and imposed an obligation on the State to ensure access to quality education for all children.

ARTICLE 25-28 (FREEDOM OF RELIGION)

Shirur Mutt case (1954):

• Interpreted Article 26, which guarantees the right to manage religious affairs. The Supreme Court held that religious denominations have the right to manage their own affairs without interference from the state.

Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958):

• Examined Article 25, which guarantees the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion. The Court emphasized that religious freedom is subject to public order, morality, and health.

Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962):

• Dealt with the interpretation of Article 25, emphasizing the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.

ARTICLE 31 (COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY)

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):

• Apart from the basic structure doctrine, this case also addressed the limitations on the power of the State to acquire property under Article 31. The Supreme Court held that the right to property is not an absolute right and can be regulated by law.

ARTICLE 32 (RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES)

Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006):

• Highlighted the significance of Article 32 as a fundamental right itself. The Supreme Court reiterated that Article 32 is a cornerstone of the Constitution and provides for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (1976):

• Often referred to as the "Habeas Corpus case," involved the suspension of fundamental rights during Emergency. The Supreme Court held that Article 32 remedies could not be suspended even during Emergency, reaffirming the importance of this fundamental right.

Miscellaneous

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997):

• Dealt with custodial violence and the powers of High Courts under Article 226. The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent custodial torture and emphasized the role of High Courts in protecting fundamental rights.

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

• Challenged the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code under Articles 14, 15, and 21, affirming the right to privacy, equality, and non-discrimination.

Common Cause v. Union of India (2017):

• Addressed the right to die with dignity and the constitutional validity of passive euthanasia under Article 21. The Supreme Court recognized the right to die with dignity as part of the right to life and allowed passive euthanasia in certain circumstances.

R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979):

• Addressed the scope of Article 14 and the right to equality in public employment. The Supreme Court emphasized fair and non-discriminatory recruitment policies.

These cases highlight the judiciary's role in interpreting and upholding fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution, ensuring justice, equality, and protection of liberties for all citizens.