Supreme Court Judgments

• On reservation in promotion

1. M Agraj case 2006: Here SC laid down three condition for reservations in promotion:
1. Particular community Myst be backward
2. Inadequate representation
3. Providing reservation would not affect administrative efficiency.
2. Jarnail Singh case 2018: in both Nagraj and Jarnail  cases SC has said that there should be a creamy layer within SC/St in promotion But here SC said unlike the Nagraj case no need to show quantifiable data of backwardness as according to 9 judge Indra Sawhney 1992 bench, SC /St by definition mean backward
3. Indra Swahney judgement said no reservations in promotion. But govt brought 77thAA in 1995 to add article 4(A) that provided reservation in promotion. Article 335 was amended to lower marks for SC/St in exam. This two amendments we're challenged in m Nagraj case.
4. In Ashoka Kumar case 2007, KG Balakrishnan said it is imp to identify who deserves benefit of reservation within the reserved category.

• On RTI

1. RAJ NARAIN CASE 1974 , SC says RTI is derived from 19(1)(a)
2. PUCL vs UOI 2004- RTI is under art 19(1)(a)

• Elections

1. ADR case 2002- made it compulsory for candidate’s past criminal record to be made public in the election afffidavit
2. Ramesh Dalal case 2005- sitting MP/MLA if convicted for a crime with jail tenure of 2 or more years would stand ineligible to contest elections.
3. PUCL case 2013- NOTA option
4. Lily Thomas case 2013- Sitting MP,MLA,MLC convicted by a lower court for a crime haivng punishment > 2 years will be immediately disqualified from his seat and won’t be allowed to contest elections for 6 years after the jail term.
5. Public interest foundation case 2018 -  wherein the party has to publish in media about the criminal records of its candidates.
6. SC in 2020 has asked political parties to explain reasons for giving tickets to candidates with criminal antecedents

• Miscellaneous

1. S Poonawalla vs UOI SC asked centre to make law on lynching
2. Joseph shine case ( adultry 497)
3. MC Mehta case- right to live in pollution free environment
4. Macchi singh (1983) and Devender pal Singh(2002): SC said death penalty to be given only in rarerest of rare case
5. Hussain ara khatoon vs home secy Bihar (1980) said speedy trial is a right under article 21
6. Vineet Narain case : SC said CBI director must be protected from political interfenrence
7. SC in kedarnath case clearly defined what sedition is and what it is not and said merely possession of seditious literature or just being a member of a banned or does not amount to seditoion. 
8. Shirur mutt case 1955 , SC gave essential practices doctrine 
9. SC in Minerva mills case 1980 said indian constitution is based on the bedrock of harmonisation
10. CK Daphtary vs OP Gupta,1971 , contempt of court is a reasonable restriction on art 19(1)(a)
11. Waman Rao case, 1981: SC reiterated basic structure and drew 24th april, 1973 as the cut off date for 9th schedule. IR coelho , 2007, SC reiterated that mere placing laws under 9th schedule does not guarentee immunity from judicial review.

• Office of profit:
• Mentioned in article 102 and 103 corresponding to disqualification of legislators.
• SC in Prodyut Bordoloi vs Swapan Roy case 2001 outlined following questions for the test:
• Whether  the govt makes appointment and has power of removal
• Whether the govt pays remuneration
• Functions of the holder and does he perform them for the govt
• Does govt hold any control over the performance of those functions
• In Jaya Bachchan vs UOI 2006 SC has said non financial benefits also amount to remuneration.
• Divya Prakash case- even if appointment is honorary
• Shibu Soren case- office brings person under the influence of the govt

• RTE

1. Unnikrishnan case 1993 SC said RTE is FR under art 21 when read along with DPSP art 41
2. same in Mohini Jain case 1992

• UCC

1. Shah Bano and Sarla Mudgal case has reiterated the need for UCC