Here are 10 significant judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts of India during the Emergency period (1975-1977) concerning Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
A.D.M. Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976): This case is also known as the Habeas Corpus case. The Supreme Court ruled that during the Emergency, the right to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 14 was suspended. This judgment is widely criticized for its interpretation of Article 21 and Article 14.
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs. Union of India (1970): Although this case predates the Emergency, its principles were invoked during the Emergency. The Supreme Court held that the President's order under Article 359 to suspend the right to move any court for the enforcement of fundamental rights was valid.
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raj Narain (1975): This case involved the validity of the 39th Amendment, which placed the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review. The Supreme Court struck down the amendment, emphasizing the importance of judicial review under Article 14.
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark judgment established the basic structure doctrine, which limits the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. It was invoked during the Emergency to argue that fundamental rights under Article 14 could not be suspended.
Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975): This case led to the declaration of the Emergency. The Supreme Court ruled that the election of the Prime Minister was subject to judicial review, and the 39th Amendment was struck down.
State of Tamil Nadu vs. M. S. V. Bharathi (1975): This case involved the validity of the Tamil Nadu Government's order on reservations in educational institutions. The High Court held that any classification must be based on objective criteria and not on arbitrary distinctions.
State of Gujarat vs. Gordhanbhai (1972): This case dealt with the classification of goods for the purpose of sales tax. The Supreme Court held that the classification must be based on rational criteria and not on arbitrary distinctions.
State of Rajasthan vs. Jagannath (1977): This case involved the classification of agricultural income for tax purposes. The High Court held that any classification must be based on rational criteria and not on arbitrary distinctions.
State of Maharashtra vs. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association (1977): This case dealt with the regulation of dance bars and emphasized that any classification must be reasonable and not arbitrary.
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Sambasiva Rao (1972): This case addressed the issue of reservation in promotions and emphasized that any classification must be based on objective criteria and not on arbitrary distinctions.
These cases highlight the judiciary's role in interpreting and upholding the principle of equality under Article 14 during the Emergency period.
No comments:
Post a Comment