Cite the case name, year, and the specific principle it established — four to five landmark cases done correctly outperform a long list of half-remembered ones.
Supreme Court judgments add immediate credibility to GS2 polity and governance answers, but only if cited accurately. A wrong year, a misattributed holding, or a vague paraphrase signals shallow preparation. The approach: learn fewer cases with greater precision.
How to Cite a Judgment in an Answer
Write the case name in inverted commas or italics, followed by the year in brackets, then the one-line principle:
'In Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to destroy its basic structure — a doctrine that continues to govern constitutional amendments today.'
For a 150-word answer, one well-cited judgment is enough. For a 250-word answer, two or three citations at most.
Master Reference Table: Landmark Cases by Theme
Fundamental Rights and Article 21
| Case | Date / Bench | Principle for UPSC Answers |
|---|
| A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) | 6-judge bench | Held that fundamental rights are watertight compartments — a position later overruled by Maneka Gandhi |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | 25 January 1978; 7-judge bench | 'Procedure established by law' under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable — not merely formally enacted. Overruled Gopalan. Established the 'golden triangle': Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interlinked and a law curtailing one must satisfy all three |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | 24 April 1973; 13-judge bench; 7:6 majority | Basic Structure doctrine: Parliament can amend but cannot destroy the fundamental features of the Constitution — democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review, rule of law |
Reservation and Social Justice
| Case | Date / Bench | Principle for UPSC Answers |
|---|
| State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) | First post-Constitution reservation case | Struck down caste-based reservation in education; led directly to the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) inserting Article 15(4) |
| Indra Sawhney v. Union of India | 16 November 1992; 9-judge bench | Upheld 27% OBC reservation in central government jobs; 50% ceiling on total reservations; excluded creamy layer from OBC benefits; held that reservations cannot apply to promotions |
| M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) | 5-judge bench | For SC/ST reservation in promotions, state must demonstrate backwardness, inadequate representation, and efficiency is maintained |
Federalism and Article 356
| Case | Date / Bench | Principle for UPSC Answers |
|---|
| S. R. Bommai v. Union of India | 11 March 1994; 9-judge bench | Floor of the Assembly is the sole authority to test a government's majority; President's Rule proclamations subject to judicial review; secularism is a basic structure feature |
| Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh (2016) | 5-judge bench | Reaffirmed that a Governor cannot advance the date of Assembly session to aid a faction against an elected government |
Gender Justice and Workplace Rights
| Case | Date / Bench | Principle for UPSC Answers |
|---|
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan | 13 August 1997; 3-judge bench (Justice J. S. Verma, Justice Sujata Manohar, Justice B. N. Kirpal) | Sexual harassment at the workplace violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21. Issued Vishaka Guidelines (binding until POSH Act 2013) requiring every employer to constitute a Complaints Committee headed by a woman, with at least 50% women members |
Environment
| Case | Date | Principle for UPSC Answers |
|---|
| M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (multiple; 1987 onwards) | Ongoing PIL; Justice P. N. Bhagwati bench for early orders | Established absolute liability for hazardous industries (Oleum gas leak); later orders led to CNG conversion of Delhi public transport, Taj Trapezium protection |
| Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) | 3-judge bench | Held that the precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle are part of Indian environmental law |
Right to Information and Transparency
| Case | Date | Principle |
|---|
| Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) | Constitutional Bench | Voters have a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) to know criminal antecedents, assets, and educational qualifications of candidates |
Quick-Reference: The Five You Must Know for GS2 Polity
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Basic Structure doctrine
- Maneka Gandhi (1978): Just, fair, reasonable procedure; golden triangle of Articles 14, 19, 21
- Indra Sawhney (1992): 50% reservation ceiling; creamy layer; no promotions reservation
- S. R. Bommai (1994): Floor test for majority; President's Rule subject to judicial review
- Vishaka (1997): Sexual harassment at workplace violates fundamental rights; Vishaka Guidelines
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Citing Kesavananda as a 1972 or 1974 judgment — it was delivered 24 April 1973
- Confusing Indra Sawhney (OBC reservation ceiling) with M. Nagaraj (SC/ST promotion reservation)
- Writing 'the Supreme Court in the Bommai case held that President's Rule cannot be imposed' — it held that it is subject to judicial review, not that it is impermissible
- Misattributing the Vishaka Guidelines to the POSH Act — the Act came in 2013, sixteen years after the judgment
BharatNotes 