Constitution of Bharat: Article 15: Part 8

 During the Emergency period (1975-1977), the judiciary faced significant challenges, and several key judgements were made regarding Article 15 of the Constitution of India. Here are 10 notable judgements:

1. ADM Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (1976): This infamous case, also known as the Habeas Corpus case, ruled that during the Emergency, individuals could not seek writs of habeas corpus to challenge their detention. This decision was later criticized for undermining fundamental rights.

2. State of Tamil Nadu v. M. S. V. Natarajan (1976): The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), which allowed preventive detention during the Emergency.

3. Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi (1975): The Allahabad High Court declared Indira Gandhi's election to the Lok Sabha void, leading to the imposition of the Emergency.

4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Although not during the Emergency, this case laid the foundation for the Basic Structure doctrine, which was later invoked during the Emergency to protect fundamental rights.

5. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975): The Allahabad High Court's decision against Indira Gandhi was a precursor to the Emergency, highlighting the judiciary's role in political matters.

6. State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas (1976): The Gujarat High Court ruled on the validity of preventive detention laws under MISA.

7. State of Maharashtra v. S. L. Khare (1976): The Bombay High Court dealt with cases of preventive detention and the rights of detainees during the Emergency.

8. State of Rajasthan v. Jagannath (1976): The Rajasthan High Court upheld the validity of preventive detention laws during the Emergency.

9. State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Sambasiva Rao (1976): The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled on the constitutionality of preventive detention laws.

10. State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas (1976): The Supreme Court upheld the validity of reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes during the Emergency.

These judgements reflect the complex and often controversial role of the judiciary during the Emergency period.