To help write answers to UPSC CSE sector, Mentor cites top 10 judgments that changed India – Indian Masterminds

To help write responses to the UPSC CSE sector, Mentor cites the top 10 judgments that changed India

The UPSC CSE-2022 Network Exam is fast approaching. It will start on September 16 and will last 5 days – September 16, 17, 18, 24 and 25. All serious aspirants would now be deep into their preparation. However, it is useful to get suggestions on writing to score better. And if such suggestions come from people who passed the exam, even these last-minute tips can be very helpful in filling in the gaps.

One such person is an IITian who has passed this prestigious exam twice, Abhijeet Yadav. In a Twitter thread, he gave some important Polity-related insights on the 10 judgments that changed India. Although he shared these judgments in brief, candidates can easily understand the essence here and can read about them in detail on the internet or in their Polity books.

KESAVANANDA BHARTI AGAINST KERALA STATE

Mr Yadav tweeted about the Kesavananda Bharati case against the state of Kerala, where in a 7-6 split verdict the court ruled that while Parliament had ‘broad’ powers, it had no the power to destroy or emasculate the base elements. or fundamental elements of the Constitution.

He wrote: “Kesavananda Bharati against the State of Kerala. SC has assigned itself the function of preserving the integrity of the Indian Constitution. The basic structure doctrine was advanced in this case and has survived to this day as one of the most enduring court decisions.

MANEKA GANDHI VS UOI

The case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India is considered the landmark case in the expansion of Article 21 and the interpretation of fundamental rights. Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution were further strengthened after this case and gave further extension to Article 21.

“Maneka Gandhi versus UoI. SC introduced due process case law. He said after this A21 case would read: “No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except in accordance with fair, just and reasonable process established by applicable law.”

Prior to this ruling, section 21 protected the right to life and personal liberty only against arbitrary executive action, not against legislative action. This case also added protection against legislative activities.

MD AHMED KHAN VS SHAH BANO BEGUM

“Maryland. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum. SC returned a unanimous verdict that whether the spouses were Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Parsee, Pagan or Pagan was irrelevant, she would be entitled to maintenance from her husband under article 125 of the CrPC.

Mohd. The Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum case is commonly referred to as the Shah Bano case. It was highly controversial and garnered great political attention. The Shah Bano case is now considered a landmark judgment that succeeded in giving Muslim women the right to alimony beyond the iddat period under Article 125 of the CrPC. The Shah Bano case study is a striking example of judicial activism to protect the rights of Muslim women against the tyranny of her husband.

(Cancelled by later laws)

OLGA TELLIS AGAINST THE BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

In his next tweet, Abhijeet wrote about “Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation case. SC ruled in favor of the BMC provision that was the basis for the eviction of slum dwellers, but also argued that the state should provide alternative housing for slum dwellers. He affirmed the right to livelihood under A21. »

This case started in 1981 when the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay Municipal Corporation decided that the inhabitants of the pavements and slums of the city of Bombay should be evicted and “deported to their respective places of origin or places outside of the city of Bombay.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION VS. UOI

His next tweet was about “Union Carbide Corporation v. UoI (case). This case revealed that legislation in India has always been reactive and not proactive. When the Bhopal tragedy happened, there were no laws specifically dealing with the same thing. Related provisions of the ICC allowed for a maximum prison sentence of 2 years.

In 1934 Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL) was consolidated in India. It manufactured chemicals, batteries and pesticides. In 1970, in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, UCIL established a pesticide factory. On the night of December 2 to 3, 1984, highly toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) escaped from the factory. Although no official death count has been made, it is estimated that while the casualties were around 20,000, the number who suffered irrecoverable physical damage was around 60,000.

INDRA SAWHNEY V, UOI

The next case is where “SC said that the Hindu caste system could be used to determine whether a class was backward or not. For other communities that did not believe in castes, other socio-economic factors would be taken into consideration. account to determine whether they were in arrears or not.

This Indra Sawhney & Others vs Union of India case is also known as the Mandal verdict. The constitution recognized social and educational backwardness, but not economic backwardness. The tribunal upheld a separate reservation for the OBC in central government jobs, but excluded the “creamy stratum” (the advanced section of a backward class, above a certain income). He also said that at no time should the reserve exceed 50%.

SUPREME COURT AOR ASSOCIATION VS UOI

This case is based on the independence of the judiciary as part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This case is known as the “Second Judges Case”. Guarantee the “rule of law” which is essential for the preservation of the democratic system and the separation of powers which is adopted in the constitution with the guiding principles of “separation of the judiciary from the executive”.

Mr. Yadav wrote: “Supreme Court AoR Association v. UoI

1st case: the college would now be composed of 4 of the oldest judges

2nd case: Introduces the concept of a college of two most experienced judges from the SC or the CH.

3rd case: Collegium would now be composed of 4 of the most experienced judges. »

VISHAKA VS RAJASTHAN STATE

The next case is that of Vishaka against the State of Rajasthan. “The SC has established 8 guidelines, based on CEDAW, which would serve to protect women from sexual harassment in the workplace until appropriate legislation is put in place to do the same.

Vishaka and Ors. against the State of Rajasthan was a 1997 Indian Supreme Court case where various women’s groups led by Naina Kapur and her organization, Sakshi, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the State of Rajasthan and the central government of India to uphold basic labor rights. women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petition was filed after Bhanwari Devi, a social worker from Rajasthan, was brutally gang-raped for ending a child marriage.

ARUNA SHANBAUG VS UOI

In his next tweet, he talked about Aruna Shanbaug’s case against UoI. He said: “In the Aruna Shanbaug case, the SC distinguished between two forms of euthanasia, active and passive. He made a distinction between the two while allowing passive euthanasia in some cases and arguing that active euthanasia would amount to murder.

The petitioner in this case, Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug, worked as a nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai. On the evening of November 27, 1973, a sweeper from the same hospital brutally raped her after tying her up with a dog chain. It was believed that the oxygen supply to the brain had stopped due to the chain strangulation and therefore the brain had been damaged. This incident caused permanent damage to her brain and drove her into a permanent vegetative state (PVS).

Later, an activist-journalist, Pinki Virani, filed a petition with the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging that there was no possibility for her to recover and get better. . She should therefore be allowed to have passive euthanasia and be absolved of her pain and agony.

JUSTICE PUTTASWAMY VS UOI

The last case he cited in his thread is Judge Puttaswamy v UoI. “SC considered that the right to privacy is a FR. Overruled previous SC judgments such as Kharak Singh, ADM Jabalpur, by the way.

On August 24, 2017, a bench of 9 judges of the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous verdict in Justice KS Puttaswamy v Union of India and other related cases, saying that the Constitution of India guarantees every individual has a fundamental right to privacy.

Abhijeet Yadav

(Abhijeet Yadav gave five years of his life to UPSC CSE. He made 6 attempts, which covered 4 Hands, 2 Interviews, 2 Selections, and achieved AIR 653 in CSE 2017 and R-List in CSE 2018. He is now a UPSC Mentor and the founder of UPSCprep.com. An alumnus of IIT Delhi, he also has his YouTube channel with over 124,000 subscribers, where he helps aspirants prepare better for UPSC exams.)

Scott R. Banks