🔰 Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 🔰

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🗝 Constitutional Provision

Article 131, Indian Constitution

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

1️⃣ Meaning

Original jurisdiction means the power of the Supreme Court to hear a case first, directly, instead of by way of appeal.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

2️⃣ Scope under Article 131

The Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction in disputes involving:

➡️ Government of India vs. one or more States

➡️ One State vs. another State

➡️ Government of India and one or more States on one side vs. one or more States on the other side

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

3️⃣ Conditions

The dispute must involve a question of law or fact of legal right.

It should concern the Union and States or between States inter se.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

4️⃣ Exclusions (Where Article 131 does NOT apply)

Disputes arising out of treaties, agreements or covenants (Art. 363).

Matters referred to Finance Commission.

Ordinary suits between citizens and the Government (these go to High Courts first).

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

5️⃣ Importance

Ensures federal balance between the Union and States.

Acts as the guardian of the federal structure of India.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

✅ Exam Tip:

Art. 131 → Original Jurisdiction

Art. 32 → Original jurisdiction for Fundamental Rights enforcement (writs).

🔰 Special Leave to Appeal (SLP) – Supreme Court of India 🔰

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔔 Constitutional Provision:

Article 136 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment, decree, sentence or order of any court or tribunal in India.

It is discretionary and extraordinary, not a matter of right.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔔 Scope:

Can be invoked in civil or criminal matters.

Provides a remedy even when no statutory appeal exists.

Ensures correction of gross miscarriage of justice or violation of fundamental rights.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔔 Conditions for Granting SLP:

Substantial question of law of general importance.

Gross miscarriage of justice or patent error in judgment.

Violation of fundamental rights.

Conflicting decisions of High Courts.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔔 Procedure:

Filed by petition, usually within 90 days of the impugned order.

Supreme Court may grant stay of operation during pendency.

Heard by a Bench of 2 or more judges.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔔 Key Features:

🔘 Discretionary: Court may refuse even if there is an error.

🔘 Extraordinary jurisdiction: Beyond ordinary appeals.

🔘 Wide applicability: Against any court or tribunal in India.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔔 Purpose:

To ensure justice in exceptional cases where other remedies are inadequate.

🔔 Example Cases:

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) – Death penalty case.

K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1965) – Administrative decisions.

🔰 Power of the President to Consult the Supreme Court 🔰

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

♣️ Constitutional Provision:

Article 143 of the Constitution of India empowers the President of India to seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact of public importance.

The President may refer such questions; the Supreme Court is not bound to answer, but normally does.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

♣️ Nature of Power:

♦️ Discretionary: President may consult the Court at their discretion.

♦️ Advisory Jurisdiction: The opinion of the Supreme Court in this context is advisory, not binding.

Any question of public importance: Can relate to constitutional interpretation, legal disputes, or other matters of national significance.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

♣️ Procedure:

🀄️ Reference by President: The question is referred in writing.

🀄️ Supreme Court’s Consideration: A Bench of judges considers the matter.

🀄️ Opinion Issued: Court may give written advice/opinion, which the President can consider.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

♣️ Key Features:

🏁 Non-binding: Advisory opinion is not enforceable as a judgment.

🏁 Scope: Only questions of law or fact of public importance.

🏁 Purpose: To assist the President in exercising constitutional functions, especially in areas of uncertainty or dispute.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

♣️ Example:

Re Presidential Reference on the Dissolution of Lok Sabha (1971) – Supreme Court gave advisory opinion on presidential powers.

🔰 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 🔰

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📢 Background

Kesavananda Bharati, head of a religious mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, which imposed restrictions on property rights.

During this case, the broader question arose: Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights?

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📢 Issues

Scope of Parliament’s power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution.

Whether Fundamental Rights can be altered or destroyed by amendment.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📢 Judgment

Delivered on 24 April 1973 by a 13-judge bench (largest in Indian history).

7:6 majority held:

⚖️ Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368.

⚖️ But it cannot alter or destroy the “basic structure” of the Constitution.

⚖️ Doctrine Laid Down – Basic Structure Doctrine

⚖️ Certain fundamental features of the Constitution are beyond Parliament’s amending power. These include:

🔅 Supremacy of the Constitution

🔅 Rule of Law

🔅 Judicial Review

🔅 Separation of Powers

🔅 Federalism

🔅 Secularism

🔅 Democracy & Parliamentary system

🔅 Fundamental Rights

(The list is not exhaustive; it evolves through judicial interpretation.)

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📢 Significance

🔹 This case is called the “Constitutional Magna Carta of India”.

🔹 It struck a balance between Parliamentary supremacy and Constitutional supremacy.

🔹 Prevented arbitrary amendments that could destroy democracy.

🔹 Still governs the limits of constitutional amendments in India today.

🔰 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 🔰

Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📣 Background

Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government under the Passport Act, 1967, without giving her reasons.

She challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing it violated her Fundamental Rights.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📣 Issues

Whether the right to travel abroad is protected under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

Whether “procedure established by law” in Article 21 should be interpreted narrowly or broadly.

Relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📣 Judgment

A 7-judge bench delivered a unanimous verdict.

⚖️ Held that Article 21 is not confined to a narrow meaning; “procedure established by law” must be just, fair and reasonable, not arbitrary.

⚖️ Right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21.

⚖️ Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive but interlinked and must be read together.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📣 Significance

Expanded the scope of Article 21 to include various unenumerated rights (like right to travel, right to privacy, right to live with dignity).

Introduced the principle of “due process of law” into Indian constitutional interpretation, aligning with natural justice.

Strengthened judicial review against arbitrary state action.

Became the foundation for later progressive rulings on fundamental rights.

👉 This case is often called the “Golden Triangle case” because it linked Articles 14, 19 and 21.

🔰 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) 🔰

Citation: AIR 1975 SC 2299

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔊 Background

Raj Narain, who contested against Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in the 1971 Lok Sabha elections (Rae Bareli constituency), filed an election petition alleging electoral malpractices.

The Allahabad High Court (1975) set aside Indira Gandhi’s election for misuse of government machinery and violation of election laws.

During appeal in the Supreme Court, the 39th Constitutional Amendment (1975) was passed, inserting Article 329A(4), which barred judicial review of election disputes involving the Prime Minister, President, Vice-President and Speaker.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔊 Issues

Whether the 39th Amendment excluding judicial review in election disputes was valid.

Whether judicial review and free & fair elections form part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔊 Judgment

⚖️ A Constitution Bench struck down Article 329A(4) as unconstitutional.

⚖️ Held that judicial review and free & fair elections are essential features of democracy and part of the basic structure doctrine (as laid down in Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).

⚖️ Indira Gandhi’s election was conditionally upheld, but the amendment was invalidated.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔊 Significance

Reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine.

Strengthened the principle that democracy, rule of law and judicial review cannot be destroyed by constitutional amendments.

Stood as a check against excessive use of constitutional power during the Emergency (1975–77).

👉 This case, along with Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Maneka Gandhi (1978), forms a trilogy of landmark judgments safeguarding constitutional democracy in India.

🔰 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 🔰

Citation: AIR 1997 SC 3011

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔔 Background

The case arose after the brutal gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan who tried to prevent child marriage.

At that time, there was no specific law in India to address sexual harassment at workplace.

Women’s rights groups filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔔 Issues

Whether sexual harassment at workplace violates Fundamental Rights under the Constitution.

Whether the Court can frame guidelines in absence of specific legislation.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔔 Judgment

⚖️ The Supreme Court held that sexual harassment at workplace violates Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(g) (right to work) and 21 (right to life and dignity).

⚖️ Recognised gender equality and dignity of women as part of basic human rights.

⚖️ Until legislation was enacted, the Court framed binding Vishaka Guidelines to prevent workplace harassment.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔔 Vishaka Guidelines (Key Points)

🔸 Definition of sexual harassment (physical contact, demands, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, unwelcome conduct).

🔸 Employer’s duty to provide a safe working environment.

🔸 Establishment of a Complaints Committee headed by a woman, with at least half members being women and one NGO representative.

🔸 Disciplinary action against offenders.

🔸 Awareness and prevention measures at workplace.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔔 Significance

First comprehensive recognition of sexual harassment as a violation of fundamental rights.

Marked judicial activism in protecting women’s rights.

Became the foundation for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

👉 This case is often called the “cornerstone of women’s workplace rights in India.”

🔰 Post-Vishaka Case Law Development 🔰

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

1️⃣ Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999)

🟣 Facts: A senior officer allegedly tried to molest his female subordinate.

🟣 Held: The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of the officer.

🟣 Principle: Even an attempt to sexually harass a woman is actionable.

🟣 Significance: Reinforced Vishaka guidelines and stressed gender dignity at workplace.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

2️⃣ Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2012)

🔵 Facts: PIL was filed highlighting poor implementation of Vishaka guidelines.

🔵 Held: The Court directed all states and institutions to strictly follow the guidelines until proper legislation is enacted.

🔵 Significance: Immediate precursor to the 2013 POSH Act.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

3️⃣ Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) (related, but broadens protection)

🟢 Held: Protection against harassment must be understood broadly; dignity and autonomy are integral to Article 21.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

4️⃣ Farooqui v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017)

🟡 Held: Consent must be “unequivocal and voluntary”; highlighted importance of respecting women’s autonomy in sexual offence cases.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

5️⃣ Rajasthan High Court v. State of Rajasthan (2019)

🟠 Held: Courts themselves, as workplaces, are bound by the Vishaka guidelines and POSH Act.

🟠 Significance: Judiciary acknowledged as an “employer” under workplace safety laws.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

6️⃣ Union of India v. Mudrika Singh (2021)

🔴 Held: The Supreme Court emphasised strict enforcement of the POSH Act, 2013, directing all organisations (public and private) to have Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs).

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🔅 Overall Significance

↪️ These cases collectively strengthened women’s rights at workplaces.

↪️ Ensured the Vishaka Guidelines evolved into statutory protection under the POSH Act, 2013.

↪️ Expanded the meaning of Article 21 (life and dignity) to include safe working conditions for women.

🔰 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 🔰

Citation: (2018) 10 SCC 1

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

⌚️ Background

Section 377 of IPC, 1860 criminalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature,” which included consensual same-sex relations.

Earlier, in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 377.

Several petitioners including dancer Navtej Singh Johar challenged Section 377, claiming it violated Fundamental Rights.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

⌚️ Issues

Whether consensual homosexual acts between adults are protected under Article 21 (right to life & personal liberty).

Whether criminalisation of same-sex relations violates Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination) and 19 (freedom of expression).

Whether Koushal (2013) was rightly decided.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

⌚️ Judgment

A 5-judge Constitution Bench delivered a unanimous verdict.

Section 377 IPC, insofar as it criminalised consensual same-sex relations between adults, was struck down.

Court held:

⚖️ Article 21 guarantees right to dignity, privacy and sexuality.

⚖️ Article 14 & 15 prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

⚖️ Article 19(1)(a) protects expression of one’s sexual identity.

⚖️ Overruled Koushal (2013).

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

⌚️ Significance

Landmark ruling recognising LGBTQ+ rights in India.

Expanded the scope of constitutional morality over social morality.

Reinforced privacy rights laid down in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) (Right to Privacy case).

Marked a step towards inclusivity, equality and dignity under the Constitution.

👉 This case is often called the “Indian Stonewall moment”, comparable to global human rights milestones.

🔰 Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009) 🔰

Citation: 160 DLT 277 (Delhi HC)

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🧭 Background

Naz Foundation, an NGO, filed a PIL challenging Section 377 IPC on the ground that it criminalised consensual homosexual relations.

They argued that it violated Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🧭 Issues

Whether criminalisation of consensual homosexual acts between adults violates Fundamental Rights.

Whether Section 377 is discriminatory under Articles 14 and 15.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🧭 Judgment (Delhi High Court)

Decriminalised consensual same-sex acts between adults.

Held that:

⚖️ Article 21 protects dignity and privacy, including sexual orientation.

⚖️ Article 14 prohibits arbitrary discrimination; Section 377 lacked reasonable classification.

⚖️ Article 15 includes protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

⚖️ Introduced the principle of “constitutional morality” over “popular morality.”

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

🧭 Significance

First time in India that homosexual rights were judicially recognised.

Created space for the LGBTQ+ community’s constitutional protection.

However, this ruling was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013).