Mody - 10 Judgements That Changed India

Prologue

TO A LARGE and obvious extent, the title of this book shapes the prologue and the contents that follow. I believe that if there is one thing that most Indians still remain deeply proud of and have abiding faith in, it is their judiciary. One of the subliminal expectations of the common man is that justice will be delivered by the highest court of the land: the Supreme Court of India. To the intelligentsia, this is the forum in which both political and executive battles will be calibrated and decided. Many of us, especially practising professionals, take much pride in seeing how the Constitution of India has been infused with life, time after time, by a deft, adept, practical and inspired judiciary.

We take for granted, as a democracy, what many citizens in other countries over the world yearn for: the freedom of speech, access to justice, the right to vote and the right to practise ones religion. In this context, every young student of the law clearly comes to recognize both the independence and the importance of the Indian judiciary in our democratic polity.

Selecting ten judgementsthose that can be termed landmark casesinvolved difficult decisions. The difficulty lay in deciding which judgements not to select simply becauseas is evident when one starts looking at the subjectthe seminal cases and landmark jurisprudence laid down by the highest court of the land have affected the basic liberties of millions of citizens throughout India. Many a time we tried to bring in other seminal judgements as part of the selection. For instance, A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (AIR 1976 SC 1207) has been discussed in the chapter on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) (Maneka Gandhi) (Chapter Two); S.P. Gupta v. President of India (AIR 1982 SC 149) has been discussed in the chapter analysing Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (AIR 1994 SC 268) (Chapter Eight); and Minerva Mills v. Union of India (AIR 1980 SC 1789) along with I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2007 SC 861) have both been analysed in the chapter discussing Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461) (Chapter One).

As can be expected, to qualify as landmark decisions, most of these seminal judgements needed to have a distinct constitutional angle. It is interesting to see that from 1947 to 2011, in a short span of sixty-four years, our Constitution has been amended fairly extensively and interpreted fairly expansively. It is probably somewhat removed from what our founding fathers would have anticipated, but, by and large, something they would have been proud of, with the Supreme Court preserving its basic structure.

Each of the ten judgements decided by the Supreme Court demonstrates the central role that the court plays in democratic governance in India. Some of these judgements have arisen as a result of both the pre- and post-Emergency Indira Gandhi regime. During this period, the court was in the throes of a constitutional conflict, torn between deciding on principles and sometimes, unfortunately, bowing to political exigencies. However, the guiding light that one hopes will continue is the ultimate thread of jurisprudence squarely in favour of a strong democracy armed with the unshakeable stamp, the freedom of speech, and the right to life with the other attendant basic constitutional safeguards.

The Emergency probably taught the Supreme Court of India many hard lessons, including, hopefully, some lessons it will never repeat. It also laid bare to the intelligentsia and the common man the fact that respite came from the gates of the courts.