The 50 Most Important Indian Court Judgments Explained
| # | Case Name |
|---|---|
| 1 | A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (The Habeas Corpus Case) |
| 2 | Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab |
| 3 | Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra |
| 4 | Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab |
| 5 | BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India |
| 6 | Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India |
| 7 | Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar |
| 8 | Chief Forest Conservator (Wild Life) v. Nisar Khan |
| 9 | D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal |
| 10 | Daniel Latifi v. Union of India |
| 11 | Dr (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai |
| 12 | Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council |
| 13 | Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India |
| 14 | Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India |
| 15 | Forum, Prevention of Envn. and Sound Pollution v. Union of India |
| 16 | Gaurav Jain v. Union of India |
| 17 | Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar |
| 18 | I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab |
| 19 | In re, Vinay Chandra Mishra |
| 20 | In Re: Death of Sawinder Singh Grover |
| 21 | Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India |
| 22 | Indra Sawhney v. Union of India |
| 23 | L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India |
| 24 | Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India |
| 25 | M/s Modi Cements Limited v. Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi |
| 26 | M/s Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame |
| 27 | Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D’costa |
| 28 | Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India |
| 29 | Minerva Mills v. Union of India |
| 30 | Mr. X v. Hospital Z |
| 31 | Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani |
| 32 | Narayan Prasad Lohia v. Nikunj Kumar Lohia |
| 33 | Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India |
| 34 | Poonam Verma v. Dr. Ashwin Patel |
| 35 | Parmanand Katara v. Union of India |
| 36 | PUCL v. Union of India |
| 37 | Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab |
| 38 | Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra |
| 39 | S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India |
| 40 | Sakshi v. Union of India |
| 41 | Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra |
| 42 | Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty |
| 43 | Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab |
| 44 | Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India |
| 45 | Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement |
| 46 | State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat |
| 47 | State of Rajasthan v. Union of India |
| 48 | Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration |
| 49 | Vincent v. Union of India |
| 50 | Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan |
(6) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802
Facts in Brief
The Petitioner was an organisation dedicated to the cause of releasing bonded labourers. It conducted a survey of stone quarries in the Faridabad District near Delhi and found that a large number of labourers from Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan were working in these stone quarries under “inhuman and intolerable conditions,” and that many of them were bonded labourers. The Petitioner accordingly addressed a letter to the Supreme Court setting out these circumstances and filed a Public Interest Litigation, alleging that hundreds of workmen were living in bondage and under inhuman conditions. The Court appointed a Commissioner to look into the matter within three to four days and to submit a report to the Court.
Judgment
Upon receiving the Commissioner’s report, which detailed violations of various constitutional and human rights of the poor labourers, the Apex Court declared that Article 21 of the Constitution assures the right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. It held that the State was under a constitutional obligation to ensure that there was no violation of the fundamental rights of any person, particularly those belonging to the weaker sections of society. The State was bound to ensure observance of the social welfare and labour laws enacted to secure workmen a basic human dignity.
Thereupon, the Apex Court issued a set of 21 guidelines to the Central Government as well as the State Governments to check such gross abuses of citizens’ rights in the future. The Court also appointed a Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, as a Commissioner to carry out the task of seeing that the directions were fulfilled.
For the Common Man
The Court’s concern in securing the release and rehabilitation of the bonded labourers in the present case set the trend in the Court of ensuring that no such violation of the fundamental and human rights of citizens would recur. It is clear now that the Courts in India will not allow anyone to be held in bondage by anyone on account of grave poverty or illness. All citizens have an equal right to survival, and it is the duty of the State to ensure the same.










