ix

INTRODUCTION

1. Statement of the Problem :

Whether Indian Judiciary has played creative role in the interpretation of
Art.21 to the Indian Constitution and whether there is any critical evaluation from
the eminent writers?
2. Significance and objectives of the Study:
Introduction:-
The Constitution has given the powers to three organs –
1. Legislature – is empowered to make Laws which is called as enacted
Law.
2. Executive – is empowered to execute Laws which is called as
administrative Law.
3. Judiciary - is empowered to interpret the Laws which is called as
Precedent. Precedent has two aspects i.e. a. ratio and obitur dicta.
The SC is the guardian of the Constitution. The Constitution has empowered
the Apex Court to safeguard the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the
Constitution. Fundamental Rights are the rights against the mighty powers of the
State. The State is defined in Art. 12 to the Constitution.
Independence of Judiciary –
The Supreme Court of India is an independent organ and independence of
judiciary is one of the important features of the Constitution. It means Judges are
appointed on merit, they get salaries and allowances which are charged on
consolidated fund of India, appointment of the officers and servants of the
Supreme Court is done by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and it is very
difficult to remove the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. To remove
the judges the simple majority of both the houses plus 2/3 majority of present and
voting is required (Art. 124 (4) (5)). This process is called impeachment process.
Judicial Review –
Art. 13 specifically states that – Laws inconsistent with or (in derogation
of) fundamental rights be void. Second Clause of the same Article prohibited
 x

State from making any law, which took away or abridged the fundamental rights
(Part III – Art. 12 to 35)
Art. 246 (3) – State legislature is empowered to make laws for any
subjects on the state list. Parliament can makes laws on the subject of State list
only in times of emergency. (Art. 352 & 356)
Art. 251 – lays down that Parliament can make laws on the subject of
State list under Art. 249 and 250.
The Supreme Court is empowered to declare any law made by the
legislature or any act of the executive null and void if it is not in accordance with
the Constitution.
Over the years, the Supreme Court has used this power to protect
fundamental rights.
Judicial Activism –
After 1980s the SC started forcing Legislature and Judiciary to do their
mandatory duties when they omitted to do so.
With above weapons in hand the SC departed from the literal
interpretation of the Constitution and started interpreting the Constitution in a
liberal way.
Objectives of the study-
I came across various cases through which the SC evolved Art.21 in a
creative way. I became interested in one question i.e. “What happens to the
judgements of the SC in the matter of implementation?”
When I came to know that the directions given by the SC in Bonded
Labour case and Bhopal Gas case were not implemented in totality I became
more interested in pursuing this side of the judgments.
I became more interested to study the effect of enlargement of the ambit
of Art. 12 and 21 on other Fundamental Rights.
I came across various books written by authors (like N.A. Palkhiwala,
Fali S. Nariman and Arun Shourie) in which some light was thrown by these
authors on the questions which were in my mind and so I decided to pursue the
matter further through my research.
 xi

3. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE:

1. B. P. Dwivedi, The changing dimension of personal liberty in India,
1998, Wadaha and Company, Allahabad:
The author has discussed how the concept of liberty is elaborated in the
constitution of England, America, Russia and some other countries. The author
has discussed the contribution of International law towards the development of
concept of liberty. In historical background he has focused on the evolution of the
concept of liberty in British period, in framing the constitution of India and the
constitution assembly. Meaning and nature of personal liberty as well as negative
and positive liberty, procedural and substantive rights and deprivation and
restriction of liberty are discussed in detail. What is the meaning of law? What is
the meaning of the procedure established by law, who can claim, against whom it
can be claimed, enforcement of right as well as right in emergency is also
discussed.
Personal liberty is discussed with right to equality, personal freedoms,
rights of detenu and relationship of fundamental rights with directive principles
are also focussed. Personal liberty and criminal justice, Personal liberty and the
poor and the recent dimensions of liberty are discussed in detail.
2. Durgadas Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India
(A comparative treatise on the universal principles of Justice and
Constitutional Government with special reference to the organic instrument of
India), 8th Edition, 2008, Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa:
The author has discussed following topics in detail.
Protection of life and personal liberty in other constitutions and in
international charters.
Scope of article 21 in India, Review Commission Recommendations,
Right against torture, Right to compensation, Right to travel abroad, Right to
privacy, Right to work, Art. 14, 19 and 21, Art. 21 and 22, Art. 21 and 23, Art 21
and 359 is also focussed.
Object of Art. 21, the meaning of person, the meaning of life and how
human rights and civil liberty are interlinked is focussed.
 xii

Life of an unborn child, the concept of free legal aid, right of speedy trial
in America and India is discussed.
The meaning of law, meaning of procedure established by law and
whether law made under Art. 21 is subject to other fundamental rights.
Constitutionality of capital punishment in America and India is discussed
with other articles.
Right to confront witnesses, right to process for producing defence
witnesses is discussed with reference to American and Indian scenario.
Right to counsel, right to defence, immunity from cruel punishment is
discussed in American as well as Indian context. Other rights under Art. 21 as
well as right to education are also discussed.
3. Dr. J. N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of India, 47th Edition, 2010,
Central Law Agency, Allahabad:
The author has discussed Art. 21 from the case of A. K. Gopalan to the
case of Maneka Gandhi in detail and has thrown the light on the right to travel.
How the concept of natural justice and concept of due process of law evolved
through judiciary is also discussed.
How the Indian judiciary started interpreting Art. 21 in a positive way and
how various rights - like right to environment, right to health and medical
assistance, as well as rights of prisoners, right to compensation and right to
education etc are inherent under Art.21 is discussed.
86th Amendment Act 2002 and right to education is discussed in detail.
How some other rights evolved through the judgements of Supreme Court
is elaborated.
4. Dr. Subhash Kashyap, Constitutional Law of India, 2008, Universal
Law Publishing Co. Delhi:
The author has discussed genesis and growth of the concept of protection
of life and personal liberty. Judicial interpretation of – no person, shall be
deprived of right to life is discussed in detail.
Right to livelihood, Life Insurance, right to know, right to shelter,
welfare legislation, right to pollution free environment, public hanging, rights of
 xiii

women, use of Bar fetters, Use of hand cuffs, solitary confinement, right to
speedy trial is discussed in detail.
Right to education – Genesis and Growth is discussed and there is
analysis and comment on the right to education.
4. Sathe S. P., Judicial Activism in India – Transgressing Borders and
Enforcing and Limits, 2002, Oxford Univ. Press, Second Impression, 2004,
New Delhi:
Judicial Activism is discussed through historical perspective. Author has
discussed post emergency era of judicial activism, growth of PIL and legitimacy
of judicial activism. He has thrown light on the evolution of activism by the SC.
Through judicial activism how the apex Court became important in Indian
democracy and how it evolved various concepts from other constitutions is
discussed in detail.
According to author the power of judicial review is limited.
5. Dhavan Rajeev, The Supreme Court of India and Parliamentary
Sovereignty (1976), Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 1976:
The author has discussed the case of Golakhnath and Keshavanand
Bharati in detail. He has discussed the nature of judicial review in constitutional
system. To him, the case of Keshavanand Bharati should not be seen as a conflict
between legislature and judiciary. He has stated that there is no clear explanation
about constituent power to amend the constitution under Art. 368. According to
the author the power to amend the constitution is a legislative power.
6. Bhandari M. K, Basic Structure of Indian constitution Deep and Deep
Publication, Delhi, 1993:
The author has made the comprehensive study of basic structure doctrine
propounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Keshavanand Bharati.
According to the author the SC has explored nearly thirty essential features of the
basic structure doctrine.
The author states that legislature and judiciary should act coherently. To
him amendment to the constitution is a serious business and parliament must act
carefully in the area of amendment to the constitution.
 xiv

7. Gran Ville Austin, Working A Democratic – A History of Indian

Experience (1999), Paper Back Edition, Oxford Uni. Press, New Delhi, 2003:
The author has discussed the course of constitutional reforms from the
post Independence period, emergency period till the period of Rajiv Gandhi. He
criticised Parliament and Supreme Court for over action and pleaded for proper
balance between them. The constitution is a source of political stability and open
society. He has commented that social revolution is pursued by the political
parties but there is a need to protect the unity and integrity of India also.
8. Chopra Pran The Supreme Court Vs the Constitution – A challenge to
Federalism, Saje Publications, New Delahi, 2006:
In this book various authors have thrown the light on the problem of
Parliamentary Sovereignty, the doctrine of basic structure and challenges to
Indian federalism.
a) Mr. N. R. Madhawa has criticised the basic structure doctrine and
supported the supremacy of the Parliament. To him, the proposition that the
constitution is what the Judges say it is, cannot be accepted as there is no clarity
as to the nature, number and space of basic features which cannot be amended.
b) Shri. Subhash Kashyap has discussed in detail the evolution of the
doctrine of basic structure. To him this is recent innovation through creative
jurisprudence. He has supported the Sovereignty of the people and their
representatives. He has cited the quotation of Justice Harilal Kania (The First
Chief Justice of India) – “In a democratic country, the people make the law
through there legislature and it is not the function of the court to supervise or to
correct the laws passed by legislature”.
c) Eminent Advocate Fali. Nariman has supported the basic structure
doctrine. To him the primary control of Government activity is of the people but
the power exercised by the Supreme Court rest ultimately upon their tacit
approval.
9. B. D. Dua Manohar, Indian Judiciary and Politics – The Changing
Landscape (2007),. Publishers and Distributers, New Delhi, 2007:
The author has discussed the concept of basic structure doctrine, judicial
activism and the concept of PIL. There are critics as well as supporters of the
 xv

judicial role. The author has discussed the topics such as ecology, secularism,
judicial reforms, the role of central executive etc.
a) Douglas Verney in his article has given a comparative insight into
judicial review in Anglo American and Common Wealth traditions. He has given
five types of judicial review-
Type I-
This type is very close to the British doctrine of sovereignty of
Parliament. In Britain judicial review emerged for the short time when Chief
Justice Coke in 1610 tried to review royal prerogatives on the basis of common
law. The author has criticised common law doctrine. To him in the year 2000 the
very notion of Parliamentary supremacy became outdated in practice though not
in theory. The Britain is now a member of European Union. The acts of
Parliament of Britain are subject to judicial review by European Court.
Type II-
Chief Justice Marshall evolved it in America and it is typical to American
Federal Constitution.
Type III-
Imperial judicial review exercised by the Privy Council over the colonies
controlled by Britain in the period of colonialism.
Type IV-
It is a Parliamentary judicial review in Canada. The Supreme Court has
contributed to lowering of the temperature between a legislature and judiciary by
exercising review of Constitutional issues. The Supreme Court has always
considered the tradition of Parliamentary supremacy.
Type V-
Parlimentary judicial review in India. The Supreme Court has challenged
the parliamentary supremacy in various cases like Golaknath (1967),
Keshavananda Bharati (1973), Minvera Mills (1980), Bommai (1994) etc.
b) Rajiv Dhawan in his article has discussed four phases of the
judgements of the Supreme Court.
Phase I (1950-1955) -
 xvi

In this phase the court raised the issues of the philosophy of the
Constitution and empowerment of the people.
Phase II (1960-1971) -
The Court faced the executive wing of the Government with great
determination.
Phase III (1972-1975)
The court expanded the doctrine of the basic structure.
Phase IV (1977-2000)-
The phase of judicial activism and PIL.
Dhavan observed that the judiciary has become and institution of
governance in its own right- a position (or usurpation) it cannot legitimise unless
it responds to some sense of the voice of the people.
c) Mahendra Pal Sing has discussed the judicial behaviour into pre
emergency period which was marked by economic liberalism and post
emergency period which was marked by Constitutionalism, egalitarianism and
social justice. To him judiciary must accelerate the pace of accomplishing the
goals of social economical and political justice.
In the review of literature it is clear that Supreme Court has widened the
ambit of Art. 12 as well as of Art. 21. Through precedents the Supreme Court has
evolved Art. 21 and has brought various rights into the ambit of Art. 21.
 xvii

4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Whether Indian Judiciary has played creative role in the interpretation of
Art. 21?
2. Through Art. 21 whether Indian Judiciary has expanded the ambit of Art.
12 and whether there is any valid criticism?
3. Whether through PIL there is evolution of Art. 21?
4. Whether there is any critical evaluation regarding the implementation of
the SC’s judgements?
5. Whether there is valid criticism on judicial governance?
6. Whether there is valid criticism on legal profession?
7 Whether any solution is suggested for inter-State water dispute by any
expert’s?
8. Whether the Courts have created any obstacles through interim orders?
9. Whether there is ‘interpolation’ instead of ‘interpretation’ in some
judgements?
 xviii

5. HYPOTHESIS
1. Indian Judiciary has played creative role in the interpretation of the Art.
21.
2. There is an enlargement of the ambit of Art. 12.
3. Through PIL there is evolution of Art. 21.
4. There is a problem of implementation in some cases due to bureaucracy.
5. Some eminent writers have criticised on Judicial Governance.
6. Legal Profession is criticised by some authors and there is a need to
improve professional and educational standard of Legal Profession.
7. Inter-state water dispute can be handled in a different way.
8. Through interim orders the Supreme Court has created some obstacles in
the smooth functioning of bureaucracy and Government.
9. There is interpolation instead of interpretation in some judgements.
 xix

6. METHODOLOGY
Hypothetic deductive method is used to analyse the research topic i.e.
“Creative interpretation by the judiciary of Art.21 to the Indian
Constitution.”
The research is primarily analytical and it is a library based. The primary
data is collected from the debates of Constitutional Assembly, the debates in
Parliament on important Constitutional amendments, the judgements of Supreme
Courts on the various Constitutional amendments, on various enacted laws and of
executive orders.
The secondary data consists of various interpretations made in
commentaries on the Indian Constitution, the books, articles and research papers
published in different journals.
The purpose of research is to critically analyse the problem of
implementation of various judgements and the role played by the political class
and bureaucracy in this area. An attempt is made to analyse the comments of
experts on various judgements of Supreme Court.
Primary Source – Statutory Materials, Government Documents and
Reports
Secondary Source - Text Books, Periodical writings, Indian Law Journals.
 xx

Decenralisation of Powers
1. Mahanagar Palika Bureaucracy
2. Nagarpalika A,B,C
Village Administration
1. Zilla Parishad
2. Panchayat Samiti
3. Gram Panchayat
xxi
xxii
xxiii
 xxiv

8. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Since 1950 the Supreme Court has gone through various phases. After
emergency period the Supreme Court started evolving new doctrines. The Court
started enlarging the ambit of Art.12, Art.21 and of other Fundamental Rights.
The period of judicial activism and of PIL contributed towards the development
of Art.21. The Court started bringing various rights within the ambit of Art.21.
I was interested in the study of the effect of these judgements of the Supreme
Court on the society. Through critical analysis of experts on the judgements of
Supreme Court in their various books I perceived that there are various problems
which are discussed by critics in the matter of implementation of the judgements
of the Supreme Court.
Weak political class, lethargic bureaucracy and literal interpretation of
words made the implementation of the decision of the Supreme Court difficult.
To have a more insight into these problems I took the decision to have a research
from these angles.
India is the largest democratic country in the world. It is every Indians
responsibility to respect our constitution and to help constitutionalism. If
Supreme Court is giving the proper judgements then it is the one of the symptom
of healthy constitutionalism but these judgements some times are nullified due to
lack of proper implementation. Non implementation of the judgements of
Supreme Court, conflicting judgements of the Supreme Court and the problem of
judicial governance is likely to create problem for democracy and
constitutionalism.
As the research is doctrinal the limitations of the same are inherent i.e. no field
work is possible, very difficult to have interview method, questionnaire method,
sample method etc.
The study is not exhaustive as there is vast scattered literature on the
research topic.
In the present thesis an attempt will be made to study the judgements of
SC on fundamental rights through various angles.
Art.21 is studied under following heads –
1. Evolution of fundamental rights before 1950 (Ist Chapter)
 xxv

2. Creative interpretation of Art.21 by the Judiciary (IInd Chapter)

3. Effect of an Act (MNAREGA) and a bill (On land acquisition) on Art.21
(IIIrd Chapter)
4. Some recent judgments of the SC on Art.21 (IVth Chapter)
5. Comments on Experts on various subjects (Vth Chapter)
i) Effect of lethargic bureaucracy on the judgements
ii) Effect of weak political class on the judgements
iii) Effect of widening the ambit of Art. 12 on Art. 14, 19, 21 and other rights
and positive as well as negative side of the effect.
iv) Effect of delay and stay orders on the rights of the people.
v) Effect of non-implementation of the judgements of the Supreme Court
and the fate of contempt of Court writ petitions.
In the thesis the comments of the experts like Arun Shourie, Nani
Palkhiwala and Fali S. Nariman on the judgements of Supreme Court are
discussed.
 xxvi

ABBREVIATIONS
AIR - All India Reports
All E.R. - All England Law Reports
Bom L.R. - Bombay Law Reports
C.J.I. - Chief Justice of India
Govt. - Government
HC - High Court
ILR - Indian Law Report
JT - Judgement Today (Journal on SC cases)
SC - Supreme Court
SCA - Supreme Court Appeals
SCC - Supreme Court Cases
SCJ - Supreme Court Journals
SCR - Supreme Court Reports
SCW - Supreme Court Weekly
U.T. - Union Territory
 xxvii

SOME IMPORTANT TERMS

Enacted Law – It means Law enacted by the Competent Legislature i.e. Central
or State Legislature
Ad Law - Means Law enacted by Executive wing of the Govt.
Precedent – It means Judge made Law.
Ratio – The binding principle evolved by the Supreme Court or High Court in
deciding particular case.
Obtier Dicta – The Statement made by the Judges of the Supreme Court or High
Court in deciding a particular case which was not necessary.
State - The State has four elements i.e. Population, Territory, Government and
Sovereignty.
Executive - It means Executive wing of the Govt.
Judiciary - It means organ empowered to interpret the law made by the
Legislature, the Executive and other agencies of the State.
Sovereign - It means sovereign power to make laws, to execute the laws and to
interpret the laws.
Government - It means Legislature, Executive and other agencies of the State.
Fundamental Right - It means the right conferred by the Constitution. The right
which is given against the mighty power of the State.
Constitution - The highest law of the land which decides the structures, powers
and functions of legislature, executive and judiciary. The highest law of the land
which decides Separation of Powers between L.E.J. and Division of Powers
between Central and State Govts.
Amendment - It means to change existing law or Constitutional Law
Judgement – The reasons given by the Judge for decree or order.
Decree - The formal expression of an adjudication which decides conclusively
the rights, liabilities and duties of the parties to the Suit or Porceeding.
Order - It can come from any authority.
 xxviii

Table of Cases
[A]
A. K. Kraipak v. Union. AIR 1969 (2) SCC 262, P.156, 169
A.D.M., Jabalpur v. S. Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207, P.64, 65, 112
A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras 1950 SCR 88, P.8, 16, 22
A.K. Roy v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 710, P.85
Abdul Rehman Antuley v. R.S. Nayak AIR 1992 SC 1630, P.41
Ajay Hasia AIR 1981(2) SCR 79, P.149,150,154
All India Imam Organization v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 2086, P.29
Almitra H. Patel v. Union, http://JUDIS.NIC.IN, P.142
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A. K Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625, P.60

Aruna R.Shanbaug v. Union and Ors– AIR 2003 SC 3176, P.81

Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P., 1995 (Supp-3) SCC 716, P.55
Asha Parekh vs State of Bihar 1977 Cr. L.J. 21(Patna), P.122
Asoka Marketing v. P. N. B. AIR 1999 3SCJ 116, P.86
Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi, AIR 1986 SC 467, P.48
[B]
Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1099, P.122
B.K. Parthasarathy v. A.P. AIR 2000 A.P.156, P.86
B.S.Mimbas v. ISI,P.K.-Ramachandra Iyer v. Union. AIR1984(1)SCR 395P.148

Babu Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 527, P.39

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898, P.47
Basheshar Nath v Income-tax Commissioner AIR 1959 SC 149, P.15
Bedi Gurcharan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1975 Cr.LJ 917 (SC), P.79
Behram v State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 123,P. 13, 14
Bhim Singh v. State of J.K, AIR 1985 4SCC 677,P.51, 53
Board of Trustee v. Dilipkumar Nadkarni. AIR 1983 SC 109,P.85
Bodhisathwa Gautam v. Sublira Chakraborty AIR 1996 1 SCC 490,P.58
 xxix

[C]
Caption M Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 1416, P.30
Chairman, G.D.M. Committee v. Supdt of Police, Thrissur, AIR 1998
Ker.122,P.79
Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988, P.57
Chameli Singh v. State AIR 1996 2SCC 459,P. 30, 61, 83
Chandra Mohan vs State of U.P AIR 1966 S.C. 1987,P.173
Chandra Raja Kumari v. Police Commissioner Hyderabad AIR 1998 AP 302,
P.27
Charanalal Sahu vs. Union of India (1990(1) SCC 613), P.133
Chenna Jagadeeswar v. State of A. P., AIR 1988 Cr.L.J. 549,P.80
Chiranjit Kaur v. Union of India, AIR 1994 2 SCC1, P.52
Citizen for Democracy v. State of Assam AIR 1995 3SCC 743, P.43
Coelho’s case AIR 2007(2) SCC 1, P.191
Common Cause v. Union of India, 1994(5) SCC 557, P.129
Consumer Edu. and Research Centre v. Union, AIR 1995 3SCC 42 ,P.31
Council for Enviro-legal Action v. Union of India AIR 1996 5SCC 281, P.35

[D]
D.B.M. Patnaik v. State of A. P. AIR 1974 SC 2092, P.38
D.K. Basu v. State of W.B.” AIR 1997 SC 610,P.49
D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. 1993 3SCC 258,P.29
Dalmiya Cement v. Union of India. AIR 1996 10 SCC 104, P.83
Daryao v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1961 SC 1457 at 146, P. 12
Deena v. Union of India, AIR 1983 4SCC 645,P.48
Delhi Develop. Horticulture Empl. Union v. Delhi AIR 1992 SC 789,P.29
Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union, AIR 1995 1 SC 40,P.56
Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State AIR 1991 (4) SCC 406, P.122, 186
Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking v. State AIR 1986 SC
2992, P.83
Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahendra Co. Ltd. . 2007 6 SCC 528, P.85
Director of Rationing v. Corporation of Culcutta, AIR 1960 SC 1355,P.168
 xxx

District Registrar and Collector v. Caneral Bank AIR 2005 SC 186,P.84

Dr. B.L. Wadhera v. Union AIR 1996 2SCC 594,P. 141
Dr. Mahesh Bedekar v. State PIL No. 173 of 2010, P.143
Dr. Mukhtyarchand v. State of Punjab AIR 1998 (5) SCALE 501,P.202
Duport Steels v. Sirs 1980 1A II ER 529 at 541,P.159
Dwarkadas v Solapur Mills AIR 1954 SC 119,P. 13
[E]
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 555, P.149
E.T. Griswold et al Vs. State 381 US 479. 14 L Ed 2d 510, P.75
Ega v. Govt. of A.P. AIR 1993 Cr.LJ 691,P.53
Erusian Equippment & Chemicals Ltd. v. WB AIR 1975 (2) SCR 674,P.149, 156
Express Newspapers v India; AIR 1958 SC 578,P. 14
[F]
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi AIR 1981 1 SC 746, P.27, 46,
61, 169
Francis Manjooram and others v. Union AIR 1996 ker.20, P.65
Free Legal Aid Cell v. Govt of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2001 DEL 455, P. 77
[G]
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab AIR 1996 2SCC 648, P.81
Golak Nath AIR 1967 SC 1643, P. 17, 114
Golkha v. D.G.P. (1992 Cr.LJ 2901, P.53
Govind v. State of M.P. AIR 1975 SC 1379, P.24, 168
[H]
Hansmuner v. Supdt. AIR 1955 1 SCR 1284, P.86
Heavy Engineering Corp.and Hindustan Steel Ltd. AIR 1969 (3)SCR 995,P.147
Hoskot case, AIR 1978 3 SCC 544, P.170
Husainara Khatoon (No. 2) AIR 1979 SC 1377, P.41
Hussainara Khatoon (No.1) v. State, AIR 1979 SC 1360, P.40, 85
[I]
In re the Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956, P.14
In re Vinay Chandra Mishra, 1995 (2) SCC 584, P.122
Inder Shingh v. State of Punjab 1995 3 SCC 702,P.53
 xxxi

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union AIR 1996 3SCC 212, P.35
Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. BCI 1995 (1) SCC 732, P.130
Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2299, P.19
Indra Sawhney v Union JT. AIR 1992 (6) SC 273, P.156
Intellectual Forum Tirupathi v. State of A.P., AIR 2006 SC 1350, P.37
[J]
J.T.Company Pvt. Ltd.v.Mill Majdur Sabha, AIR 1967 SCR (1) 15, P.155
Jagmohan Singh v. Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 947,P.47
Javed Ahmad v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1985 SC 231, P.45
Jayantilal v. Eric 1975 Cr.LJ 661 Guj.,P.85
Jogindar Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 4SCC 260, P.48
Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470, P.49
[K]
K. Sai Redde v. Dyputy Engineer. AIR 1995 A.P. 208,P.83
Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala. AIR 1973 SC 1461, P.18,114
Kewal Pati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1995 3 SCC 600, P.53
Kharak Singh case- AIR 1963 SC 1295,P.23, 24,167
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. AIR 1996 2SCC
682, P.32
Kishan Pattnayak v. State AIR 1989 Supp (1) SCC 258, P.61
Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1981 SC 625,P.43
Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v Union . AIR 1962 SC 1139,P.157
Kumari v. State of T.N., AIR 1992 SC 2069 : AIR 1992 2 SCC 223,P.54
[L]
L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India AIR 1980 AN WR 109 P. 19
L. Chandran vs Venkatalakshmi AIR 1900 Ap.1,P.68
LIC of India v. Consumer Edu. & Research Centre AIR 1995 5SCC 482, P.73

Louis v. Union of India. AIR 1991 3 SCJ 141, P.86

Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhry vs. State (Delhi Administration) 1984(1) SCC 722 ,P.130
Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787, P.54
[M]
 xxxii

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 746, P. 22, 24, 84

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086, P.152
M. H. Hoscott v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 3SCC 544, P.204
M.C. Mehata v. Union. AIR 1987 (a) SCR 819, at 828,P.150
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1996 4SCC 150,P.35
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4016, P.37
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 4SCC 463A,P.34
M.C.Metha v. Union of India, AIR 1988 1SCC 171 ,P.34
M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 978 SC 1548,P.39
M.K.Acharaya v. C.M.D.W.B.S.E. Dist. Co. Ltd. AIR 2008 Kal 47 ,P.30
M.P. Vashi v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 5 SCC 730, P.204
Madhu Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1989 4SCC 62, P.46
Malak Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 981 SC 760, P.70
Marbury v Madison 1 Cranch 137 – (American Court), P.19
Masud Alam v. Commissioner of Police, 59 CWN 293 (1954-55), P.79
Metal Corporation case AIR 1967 SC 637, P.170
Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789, P.19
Mohd. Sahid v. Govt. NCT, Delhi AIR 1998 SC 2023, P.53
Mohinder Singh Gill vs Election Commission, AIR 1978 1 SCC 447, P.172
Mohini Jain v. State of Kamataka 1992 (3) SCC 666, P.65,153
Moses Wilson v. Karturba AIR 2008 SC 379,P.42
Moulana Mufti Syed Md Noorur Rehman Barkati v. State AIR 1999 Ker.15, P.80
Mr. “X” v. Hospital “Z”, AIR 1998 (8) SCC 296,P.162
Mr. X v. Z Hospital AIR 1995 SC 495,P.67
Mrs. X v Mr. Z AIR 2002 Delhi 217 ,P.67
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai. AIR1976SCR (3)591,P.155
Munn v. Illinois AIR 1876 94 US 113,P.24
Murli S. Deora case AIR 2002 SC 40,P.69
Murlidhar Kesekar v. Vishvanath Barde. AIR 1995 SCC 549, P.83
[N]
N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P. AIR 1994 SC 2633,P.54
Nand Lal v. State of Punjab AIR 1981 SC 2041,P.26
 xxxiii

Nandini Sundar and Ors. V. State of Chattisgarh - Writ Petition (Civil) No. (S).
250 of 2007,P.100
Narasimha Rao v. State AIR 1988 (4) SCC 626,P.162
Naresh v State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 1,P. 13
National H.R.Commission v. State of Arunachal AIR 1996 1 SCC 742,P.28
Naval v. Union of India, AIR 2009 Raj. 63,P.33
Neeraja Chaudhari v. State of M.P.AIR 1984 SC 1099,P.27
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 2SCC 746,P.52
Ningammar v. Chikkaiah AIR 2000 Kar. 50 ,P.73
Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 984 ,P.46
Niyamakendram, Kochi v. Secretary Corp.of Kochi. AIR 1997 Ker. 152,P.68
NOIDA Entrepreneurs Asso. v. NOIDA & Ors. W.P.No.(Civil) : 150 of
1997,P.102
Noise Pollution v. In re AIR 2005 5SCC 773, P.144
Nurthy Devi v. State of Delhi AIR 1998 9 SCC 604, P.54
[O]
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180, P.29
Om Birangana Religious Society v. State 1996 100 CWN 617, P.79
Omega Adv.Agency v State Electricity Board AIR 1982 Gau 3, P.16
[P]
P. P.M. Thangiah Nadar Firm v. TN, 2006 5 CTC 97, P.55
P. Rathinam v. Union of India AIR 1994 3SCC 394, P. 80
P.A. Narayanan v. Union of India AIR 1998 3 SCC 67, P.54
P.A.Theatre I et al vs. L. R. Slaton, Dist. Attorney, Atlanta Jud. Circuit, et al1,
412 Us 49, 37 L Ed 2d 446, P.75
Paschim Banga Khet Majdoor Samittee v. State AIR 1996 4SCC 37, P.31, 61
Parmanand Katara v. Union of India AIR 1989 SC 2039, P.31, 202
Pathumma v State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771 at 774, P. 21
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India AIR 2002 SC 456, P.68, 71
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473, P.27
People’s Union of Civil Liberties vs Union, 1997(1)SCC 1203;157,P.55, 126
 xxxiv

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Police Commissioner, Delhi

Headquarter, AIR 1989 4 SCC 730, P.51
Pierce Oil Corp. v Phoenix Refining Co. 259 U.S. 125 (1922),P. 16
Poonam Varma v. Doctor Ashween Patel AIR 1996 SC 2111,P.202
Praga Tools Corporation AIR 1969 (3)SCR 773,P.147
Pragati Varghare v. Cyril George Varghese AIR 1978 SC 1675,P.71
Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1988 SC 1535,P.42
PUCL v. Union of India, AIR 2000(5) SC ALE 30, P.61
Punnan Thomas Vs State of Kerala AIR 1969 Kerala 81,P.149
[Q]
Qudrat Ullah vs Municipal Board, AIR 1974 1 SCC 202, P.172
[R]
R. K. Garg v. Union. AIR 1982 (1) SCR 947,P.163
R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., AIR 1994 6SCC 632, P.67
R. V. Secretary of State for Home Affairs & ors, (1975 -2 All E.R. 1081, P.75

R.C. Cooper v Union; AIR 1970 SC 564,P. 14

R.D. Upadhayay v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2006 SC 1946, P.54, 60

R. D. Shetty v. Int.Airport Authority of India AIR1979 (3) SCR 1014 at 1032,

P.148
Lai v. Mustafabad OH & Cotton Ginning Factory, AIR 1968 P&H 399, P.78

Radhyeshyam Khare vs State of M.P AIR 1959 SC 107,P.169

Raghubir Singh v. State AIR 1986 4SCC 481,P.41
Rajastan Electricity Board, Jaipur v. Mohanlal, 1967 (3)SCR 377, P.147
Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P., AIR 1979 SC 916 ,P.47
Ram Jaway’s case . AIR 1955.SC 549,P.187
Ram Jethmalani and Ors. v. Union - Writ Petition (CIVIL) NO. 176 OF
2009,P.104
Ramnath Shetty Case AIR 1987 (1) SCR 819 at 842,P.148, 150
Randhir Sing v Union . AIR 1982 (1) SCC 618,P.157
 xxxv

Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari v. Nagaphainender Rayala AIR 2008 AP 98,P.71

Re Noise Pollution, AIR 1999 Ker. 15,P.77

Reliance Energy Ltd. v. State AIR 2007 (8) SCC 1, P.189
Romesh Thappar v State of Madras AIR 1959 SC 124, P. 12
Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 4SCC 141 ,P. 51
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. 1985 2SCC 431, P.33

[S]
S. Jagannath v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 811,P.36
S. K. Gupta vs. State AIR 2012 ,P.203
S. R. Kapoor v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 752 P.44
S.Devi v. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking AIR 1995 2SCC 369, P.53
S.K. Mastan B v. G.M. South, AIR 2003 1 SCC 184, P.84
S.K.Saha v. South Point Montessoy High School AIR 2008 (Noc) 136 (Gau),
P.69
S.L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan AIR 1980 4 SCC 370, P.169
Sabhajit Tewary v. Union AIR 1975 (3) SCR 616,P. 148, 153
Saheli v. C.P. AIR 1990 SC 513, P.52, 53
Sainik Schools Employees Ass. v. Defence 1988 SCR SUPP 3 398 at 406, P.153
Sajjan Singh case. AIR 1965 SC 845, P.17, 20, 109, 170
Sakal Papers v Union. AIR 1962 SC 305, P.14
Samata Judgment AIR 1997(6) 449 at 482, para 48, P.159
Sampurna Sing v. State of Haryana. AIR 1975(2) SCC 810, P.158
Samsher Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 1974 2 SCC 831, P.172
Sandhi Jeevaraj Ghewarchand v. Secretory AIR 1969 (1) SCR 366, P.155
Satwant Sing Sawhnevy AIR 1967 SC 1836, P.25, 84, 154, 174
SC Bar Association v. Union of India, 1998 (4) SCC 409, P.122
Shakila Abdul Gaffar v. Vasant Raghunath Dhokale AIR 2003 SC 4567, P.55
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union - AIR 1951 SC 458, P.16, 17, 109, 170
Sharda V. Dharmpal AIR 2003 (4)SCC 493,P.69
Sheela Barse v. State of Maharaashtra AIR 1983 SC 378, P.44
 xxxvi

Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 4635, P.45

Shri Ram Food and Fertilizer v. Union of India AIR 1986 2SCC 176, P.33
Smt. Hanrinder Kaur v. Harmonder Singh Choudhry AIR 1984 Delhi 66, P.68
Smt. S.Mathava v. S.M.H.S.B.S. & ors, AIR 2008 (Noc) 374,P.69
Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee AIR 1989 SC 1988,P.29, 86
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Shing AIR 1952 SC 226,P. 10
State of Bombay v RMDC AIR 1957 SC 699, P. 13
State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills AIR 1974 SC 1300, P. 13
State of H.P. v. Umed Ram Sharma. AIR 1986 2SCC 68, P.83
State of Madras v V.G.Row. AIR 1952 SC 196,P. 13
State of Maharashtra v. Basanti Bai AIR 1986 SC 146, P.85
State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan AIR 1983 3SCC 387, P.27
State of Maharashtra v. M.P. Vashi. AIR 1995 5SCC 730, P.39
State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan AIR 1991 SC 207, P.67
State of Maharashtra v. Maruty Sripati Dubal. 1987 Cr.LJ. 549, P.80
State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Pandurang, AIR 1986 SC 424, P.70,169
State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil, AIR 1991 2SCC 373, P.52
State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, AIR 1997 SCC 1225, P.32
State of Rajasthan and others v. Union, AIR 1978 (1) SCR 1,P.155
State of Rajasthan v Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361 at 1413, P. 20
State of U.P.v. Shah M.D. AIR 1969 SC 1234,P.85
State v. Lavu.1971 1 SCC 601,P.85
State v. N.A.Mali AIR 1952 Bombay 82 AIR 1952 Bombay 82,P.79
Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420 ,P.33
Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1986 25SCC 401, P.39
Sukhdev v. Raghuvanshi. AIR 1975 (3) SCR 619, P.148
Sunil Batra v. Delhi AIR 1978 SC 1675, P. 26, 40, 170
Sunil Batra v. Delhi AIR 1980 SC 1579, P. 42
Sunil Gupta v. State of M.P. AIR 1990 3SCC 119, P.42
Supt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, WB v. Corp. of Cal. AIR 1967 SC
997, P.168
Surjit Singh Thind v. Kanwaljit Kaur AIR 2003 P&H 353, P.70
 xxxvii

[T]
T. V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1981 SC 643,P.45
Tarun Bora v. State of Assam AIR 2002 SC 2926, P.83
Terry Foucha, Louisiana 504 US -118 L Ed 2d 437, P.75
TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 355, P.66
TN v. K. Sabanayagam. AIR 1998 (1) SCC 318,P.155
Triveni Ben v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 142, P.45

[U]
Ujjam Bai vs. U.P. AIR 1963 (1) SCR 778, P.147
Union Carbide Corporation v.. Union AIR 1991 (4) SCC 584, P.122,187
Union of India vs Sankalcnad Himatlal Sheth, AIR 1977 4 SCC 193) , P.173
Unni Krishnan v. State of A. P., AIR 1993 1SCC 654, P.65
[V]
V. Lakshmipathy v. State, AIR 1992 Kant 57, P.78
Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 2009 SC 1822, P.42
Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 p 399, P.40
Veeran v. Veeravarualle AIR 2009 Mad 64 , P.74
Vellore Citizen’s v. Welfare Forum Union of India, AIR 1996 5SCC 650, P.36
Vikram Deo Singh Tomar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 1782, P.44
Vincent Parikurlangara v. Union of India, AIR 1987 2SCC 165, P.33
Vineet Narain v. Union. AIR 1998 (1) SCC 226, P.163
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011, P.58,60
[W]
Waman Rao v Union of India. AIR 1981 SC 271, P. 19
Willie Israel Alderman et al. v. USA 394 US 165, 22L Ed 2d 176, P.73
Wood polymer case. 109 ITR 177 (1977), P.177
[Y]
Y.A.A.Fazalbhoy v M.S. Kasbekar AIR 1982 Bom 135 at 143, P. 15