By

Dr. Y. Srinivasa Rao, Sr. Judicial Officer.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. BENCH OF 13-JUDGES DECIDED – 1 CASE
2. BENCH OF 11-JUDGES DECIDED – 5 CASES
3. BENCH OF 9-JUDGES DECIDED – 14 CASES
4. BENCH OF 8-JUDGES DECIDED – 4 CASES

BENCH OF 13-JUDGES DECIDED THIS CASE.

1. HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALA VAR U
   VS STATE OF KERALA., 1973 (1) S.C.R. 1.

Held:

The view by the majority in these writ petitions is as follows :-

1. Golak Nath’s case is over-ruled;

2. Art. 368 does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution;
3. The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971 is
   valid;
4. Section 2(a) and (b) of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth
   Amendment) Act, 1971 is valid’;
5. The first part of section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth
   Amendment) Act, 1971 is valid. The second part, namely,
   “and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving
   effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court
   on the ground that it does not give effect to such policv” is
   invalid; ·
6. The Constitution (Twenty-ninth Amendment) Act 1971 is
   valid.

BENCH OF 11-JUDGES DECIDED – 5 CASES:

1. T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors, [2002] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 587
2. H.H.Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Bahadur and Ors. Vs. Union of India, [1971] 3 S.C.R. 9.
3. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper Vs. Union of India, (1970) 3 S.C.R. 530.
4. I.C.Golak Nath and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr, (1967) 2 S.C.R.762.
5. The State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad and Ors, (1962) 3 S.C.R. 10.

BENCH OF 9-JUDGES DECIDED – 14 CASES:

1. Justice K.S.Putiaswamy (Retd.) and another Vs. Union of India and Ors, (2017) 10 S.C.R. 569.
2. Jindal Stainless Ltd and anr Vs. State of Haryana and Ors, (2016) 10 S.C.R.1.
3. LR. COELHO (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, (2007) 1 S.C.R. 706.
4. Special Reference No.1 of 1998 , 1998 Supp. 2 S.C.R. 400.
5. LR. COELHO (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, (1996) Supp. 10 S.C.R. 472.
6. MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. ETC. ETC. Vs. UNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC., (1996) Supp. 10 S.C.R. 585.
7. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA ETC. ETC. Vs. AMRRATLAL PRAJIVANDAS AND ORS. ETC. ETC., (1994) Supp. 1 S.C.R. 1.
8. S.R. BOMMAI AND ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., (1994) 2 S.C.R. 644.
9. SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION AND ANR. ETC. Vs. UNION OF INDIA, (1993) 2 S.C.R. 659.
10. THE AHMEDABAD ST. XA VIERS COLLEGE. SOCIETY & . . ANR. ETC. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR., (1975) 1 S.C.R. 173.
11. SUPERINTENDENT & LEGAL REMEMBRANCER, Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL., (1967) 2 S.C.R.172.
12. NARESH SHRIDHAR.,MIRAJKAR AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR, (1966) 3 S.C.R 744.
13. THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA 1963 LTD. & OTHERS Vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM AND OTHERS., (1964) 4 S.C.R. 99.
14. IN RE. THE BILL TO AMEND S. 20 OF THB SEA CUSTOMS ACT, 1878, AND S. 3 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISES AND SALT ACT, 1944., (1964) 3 S.C.R. 787.

BENCH OF 8-JUDGES DECIDED – 4 CASES:

1. KESHAVLAL JETHALAL SHAH v. MOHANLAL BHAGW ANDAS & ANR., (1968) 3 S.C.R. 623.
2. PANDIT M. S. M. SHARMA . v. DR. SHREE KRISHNA -SINHA AND OTHERS., (1961) 1 S.C.R. 96.
3. IN RE: THE BERUBARI UNION AND EXCHANGE OF ENOLA VES REFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 143(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., (1960) 3 S.C.R. 250.
4. M. P. SHARMA AND OTHER Vs. SATISH CHANDRA, DIS1’RICT MAGISTRATE, DELHI, AND OTHERS., (1954) 1 S.C.R. 1077