1. Chandra Kumar v.
Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125:
Facts: The case dealt with the constitutional validity of certain provisions related to the
appointment and service conditions of the Administrative Tribunals.
Principle: It established the supremacy of the High Courts over administrative tribunals
concerning matters involving constitutional rights.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226
and 227 could not be ousted by legislative provisions.
2. Rampur Distillery Co. Ltd. v. Company Law Board, AIR 1970 SC 1789:
Facts: The appellant challenged the Company Law Board's order regarding the company's
management and the powers of the Board.
Principle: Jurisdiction of the Company Law Board over issues pertaining to company
management was upheld.
Judgment: The Court ruled that the Company Law Board had the authority to supervise and
ensure compliance with the Companies Act.
3. Ramesh Chandra Sharma & Ors v. State of UP – No 21323/2018:
Facts: This case dealt with the legality of certain administrative actions by state officials
affecting petitioners' rights.
Principle: Emphasis on fair administrative action and due process.
Judgment: The Court issued directions to ensure lawful and fair processes were followed by
state authorities.
4. Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 554:
Facts: Concerned the validity of a law regulating the manufacture and sale of medicines,
including dawa.
Principle: The Court evaluated the law's constitutionality concerning the freedom of trade.
Judgment: The law was upheld, balancing public health interests with individual rights.
5. Anoop Singh The.Lr(s).&Ors. v. State of UP – No 2256/2019:
Facts: Issues of land acquisition and compensation were at the center of this case.
Principle: Right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition were reinforced.
Judgment: The Court directed re-evaluation of compensation based on the market value.
6. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65:
Facts: The case involved tax assessment and legitimacy of the income tax assessments
conducted by the authorities.
Principle: Clarified the powers of the Income Tax authorities during assessment.
Judgment: The Court ruled in favor of tax collections within the framework of law,
underlining lawful assessment procedures.
7. Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India & others, No 6805 of 2022:
Facts: Related to the functioning of Administrative Tribunals in Orissa.
Principle: Examined the effectiveness and accessibility of judicial review against tribunal
decisions.
Judgment: The Court emphasized the need for continued strength and independence of
judicial review mechanisms.
8. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207:
Facts: Challenged the detention of persons without trial during the Emergency period.
Principle: Addressed fundamental rights and the limits of state power during emergencies.
Judgment: The Court controversially ruled that the right to life and liberty could be
suspended during emergencies.
9. SP Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87:
Facts: Focused on judicial appointments and the role of the executive and judiciary.
Principle: Established the principles of transparency and accountability in judicial
appointments.
Judgment: The judgment promoted independence of the judiciary and laid foundation for
judicial appointments' transparency.
10. N. Nagendra Rao v. State A.P., (1994) 6 SCC 205:
Facts: Examined the power of state authorities in employment-related disputes.
Principle: Ensured governance based on accountability and checks on arbitrary authority.
Judgment: The Court decided in favor of maintaining standards in employment governance.
11. Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889:
Facts: Concerns raised about corruption and accountability in governance.
Principle: Established enhanced accountability for public officials and mechanisms to combat
corruption.
Judgment: The Court directed government agencies to function transparently in corruption-
related cases.
12. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207:
1. Facts: The case arose during the Emergency (1975-1977) in India
when several individuals were detained without trial. The petitioners
challenged the constitutionality of these detentions under Article 21
(right to life and personal liberty).
2. Principle: The Supreme Court examined the extent of Article 21 and
whether its right could be suspended during an emergency.
3. Judgment: The Court controversially ruled that the right to life and
liberty could be suspended during an emergency, and in a 4:1 majority
judgment, it upheld the government's actions, stating that the
detaining authority had the discretion to determine legality.
13. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87:
1. Facts: This case addressed the issue of judicial appointments and the
composition of the higher judiciary. The petitioner challenged the
manner in which judges were being appointed.
2. Principle: It examined the independence of the judiciary and the role
of the executive in judicial appointments.
3. Judgment: The Supreme Court held that judges’ appointments must
be made with due consultation between the Chief Justice and the
executive, affirming the need for transparency in appointments while
stressing the importance of judicial independence.
14. N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P., (1994) 6 SCC 205:
1. Facts: This case pertained to the appointment and dismissal of a
worker under public service, focusing on whether the dismissal
procedure complied with principles of natural justice.
2. Principle: Emphasis was put on the need for fairness and due process
in administrative actions affecting employees.
3. Judgment: The Court ruled that termination of services must follow
natural justice principles, reinforcing the need for a fair hearing before
dismissing any public servant.
15. Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889:
1. Facts: This case arose from concerns about corruption among public
officials and the ineffectiveness of certain anti-corruption frameworks.
2. Principle: The Court underscored the necessity for independence of
investigative agencies in combating corruption.
3. Judgment: The Supreme Court directed that the CBI should be
restructured to ensure independence and transparency in its
operations, thereby enhancing accountability in the fight against
corruption.
16. Vishwarao v. Lokayukta, Maharashtra, AIR 1985 Bombay 136:
1. Facts: This case involved the powers of the Lokayukta in investigating
grievances against public officials.
2. Principle: Examined the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta under the
Maharashtra Lokayukta Act.
3. Judgment: The High Court upheld the Lokayukta’s powers to
investigate charges of corruption against public officials, emphasizing
the importance of accountability in public governance.
17. Vijay Rajmohan v. State, (SC) 832 : AIR 2022 SC 4974:
1. Facts: Involves the appeal against a conviction concerning a criminal
offense and the procedural aspects of the trial.
2. Principle: Focused on evidential standards and the need for a fair trial.
3. Judgment: The Supreme Court may have emphasized the importance
of proper procedure and evidence in ensuring justice, potentially
overturning the lower court's decision based on pivotal legal grounds.
18.
