✅ TOP 50 LANDMARK JUDGMENTS
📌 CRIMINAL LAW
1. Smt. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
This judgment declared the involuntary administration of narcoanalysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests on accused individuals as unconstitutional. The court held that such methods violate the ‘right against self-incrimination’ and the ‘right to life and personal liberty’.
2. Regina v. Dudley and Stephens
In this case, the cour: established that the defense of necessity cannot justify the murder of an innocent person. It affirmed the principle that extreme hunger and the instinct for self-preservation do not constitute a legal defense for taking another’s life.
3. Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults in private by ruling that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was unconstitutional. The judgment found that the law violated the fundamental rights to equality, privacy, and dignity.
4. Mukesh & Aur v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Nirbhaya gang rape case)
The Supreme Court confirmed the death penalty for the convicts, categorizing the crime as falling within the “rarest of the rare” doctrine due to its extreme brutality which shocked the societal conscience. This decision reinforced that the depravity and savage nature of a crime are critical grounds for awarding capital punishment.
5. Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India
The Supreme Court permanently decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults by striking down the relevant part of Section 377 of the IPC as unconstitutional. The verdict established that sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of identity and that discrimination on this basis violates fundamental rights.
6. Daniel M’Naghten’s Case
This judgment established the ‘M’Naghten Rules, the legal standard for the insanity defense in criminal law. The test holds that an accused can be acquitted if, due to a mental discase, they were unable to understand the nature of their act or that it was wrong.
7. Joseph Shine v. Union of India
The Supreme Court struck down the colonial-cra offense of adultery (Section 497 of the IPC), declaring it unconstitutional for treating a woman as the property of her husband. The court held that the law was arbitrary and violated the fundamental rights of women to dignity, privacy, and equality.
8. Independent Thought v. Union of India and Anr.
This judgment effectively criminalized marital rape of a minor wife by removing the legal exception that protected a husband from prosecution. The court raised the age of consent within marriage to 18 ycars, holding that a child bride’s rights to dignity and bodily integrity must be protected.
9. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
While affirming the constitutional validity of the death penalty, the Supreme Court laid down the “rarest of the rare doctrine. It ruled that for murder, life imprisonment is the norm and the death sentence is an exception, to be imposed only when the alternative is unquestionably foreclosed.
10. Shri D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
The Supreme Court issued a comprehensive set of mandatory guidelines, known as the D.K. Basu Guidelines,’ to be followed by police during arrest and detention. The judgment strongly condemned custodial violence, affirming it as a violation of fundamental rights and human dignity.
11. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
The Supreme Court affirmed that the secular law, specifically Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applies to all citizens irrespective of their religion. It ruled that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance from her former husband even after the iddat period if she is unable to support herself.
📌 LAW OF TORTS
12. Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir
The court held that injury to religious feelings does not constitute a legal wrong (injuria). Therefore, even if emotional harm (damnum) is caused, there is no actionable claim in tort.
13. Gloucester Grammar School Case
This case established the principle of damnum sine injuria (damage without legal injury). It affirmed that causing financial loss to a competitor through lawful business activities is not a legal wrong and is not actionable.
14. Ashby v. White
This judgment laid down the principle of injuria sine damno (legal injury without damage). The court ruled that the violation of a legal right, such as the right to vote, is an actionable wrong in itself, even if no actual loss is suffered.
15. Bhim Singh v. State of J&K
The Supreme Court affirmed that the wrongful
arrest and illegal detention of a person is a clear violation of their fundamental rights. This constitutes an actionable legal injury (injuria sine damno), for which the court can award damages even without proof of financial loss.
16. Rylands v. Fletcher
This case established the ‘Rule of Strict Liability,’ holding that a person who keeps a hazardous substance on their land is liable for any harm caused by its escape. This liability applies even if the person was not negligent.
17. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
The Supreme Court introduced the ‘Rule of Absolute Liability’ for enterprises engaged in hazardous activities. This principle holds that if a hazardous substance escapes, the enterprise is absolutely liable to compensate all victims, with none of the exceptions available under the strict liability rule.
18. Century Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board
This judgment clarified the scope of vicarious liability, holding that an employer is liable for an employee’s negligent act, even if it is umauthorized. Liability attaches if the act was done, however improperly, during the ‘course of employment’,
19. Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Clube
This case illustrates the defense of volenti non fit injuris (to a willing person, injury is not done). The court held that a spectator who voluntarily attends a sports event consents to the inherent risks of that activity and cannot claim damages for injuries resulting from them.
20. Nichols v. Marsland
This judgment established the “Act of God as a valid defense in tort law. A defendant is not liable for damage caused by an extraordinary and unforeseeable natural event that could not have been prevented by reasonable foresight..
21. Stanley v. Powell
This case defined the defense of an “inevitable accident. It held that a person is not liable for an injury that occurs without any fault or negligence on their part and could not have been avoided by any reasonable precaution.
22. Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co.
This case provided the classic definition of negligence, establishing the “reasonable person” standard. Negligence is the failure to do something a prudent and reasonable person would do, or doing something they would not do.
📌 LAW OF CONTRACT
23. Harvey v. Facey
This judgment established that a mere statement of the lowest price does not constitute an offer to sell. The court held that such a statement is only a response to an inquiry and not an expression of willingness to be legally bound.
24. Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt
The court ruled that for a valid contract to be formed, the acceptance of an offer must be made with knowledge of the offer. Therefore, performing the conditions of a proposal without being aware of it does not amount to acceptance.
25. Powell v. Lee
This case established the principle that for an acceptance to be valid and create a binding contract, it must be communicated by the offeree or their authorized agent. A communication from an unauthorized person is not effective as an acceptance.
26. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
The court held that an advertisement containing specific terms and promising a reward can constitute a unilateral offer to the public. The performance of the conditions specified in the offer is considered a valid acceptance, creating a binding contract without the need for prior notification.
27. Felthouse v. Bindley
This judgment affirmed the crucial principle that silence cannot amount to acceptance of an offer. The court ruled that acceptance must be clearly communicated to the offeror, and one cannot impose a contract on another by stating that their silence will be taken as consent.
28. Balfour v. Balfour
The court established the legal presumption that in domestic and social agreements, there is no intention to create legally binding relations. Such arrangements are hased on mutual trust and affection, and the law will not enforce them unless a clear intention to be legally bound is proven.
29. Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. M/s. Girdharilal Parshottandas & Co.
The Supreme Court ruled that for contracts made through instantancous forms of communication, such as the telephone, the contract is formed at the place where the acceptance is heard by the offeror. This decision distinguished instantaneous communication from the postal rule, where acceptance is complete upon dispatch.
30. Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose
The Privy Council declared that a contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio (void from the beginning), not merely voidable. This landmark ruling established that a person incompetent to contract cannot make a legally enforceable agreement.
31. Pharmaceutical Society v. Boots Cash Chemists
This case clarified the distinction between an “offer” and an “invitation to treat.” The court held that the display of goods in a self-service shop is merely an invitation to treat, and the customer makes the offer to buy when they present the goods at the cash counter.
32. Durga Prasad v. Baldeo
The court held that for a promise to be enforceable, the consideration for it must have been given “at the desire of the promisor.” An act done at the request of a third party does not constitute valid consideration for a promise.
📌 INDIAN CONSTITUTION
33. A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras
In one of its carliest judgments, the Supreme Court took a narrow and literal view, holding that fundamental rights were separate from each other. It ruled that “procedure established by law” under Article 21 only meant a procedure enacted by a legislature, not necessarily one that was fair or just.
34. ADM, Jabalpur v. S. S. Shukla (Habeas Corpus Case)
In a widely criticized decision during the Emergency, the court held that the suspension of Article 21 by a Presidential Order meant that the writ of habeas corpus was also suspended. This ruling effectively denied citizens the right to challenge their detention, even if it was illegal or mala fide.
35. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (Mandal Commission Case)
The Supreme Court upheld the 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment. At the same time, it introduced two crucial safeguards: the exclusion of the “creamy layer” (socially advanced members) and a 50% ceiling on total reservations.
36. I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab
The court declared that Fundamental Rights held a “transcendental and immutable” position in the Constitution. It ruled that Parliament had no power to amend or abridge these rights, establishing a principle of judicial supremacy to protect them from legislative overreach.
37. Lily Thomas v. Union of India
This judgment struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, which allowed convicted legislators to retain their seats while their appeals were pending. The court ruled that disqualification from office is automatic and instantaneous upon conviction for a serious crime.
38. Minerva Milis v. Union of India
The Supreme Court powerfully reaffirmed the “basic structure doctrine,” striking down constitutional amendments that gave Parliament unlimited amending power. It established that the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are an essential feature of the Constitution that cannot be destroyed.
39. State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan
This judgment established the supremacy of Fundamental Rights over Directive Principles of State Policy, striking down caste-based reservations in educational institutions. This ruling directly led to the First Constitutional Amendment, which empowered the state to make special provisions for backward classes.
40. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
This landmark decision completely transformed Indian constitutional law by overruling its previous restrictive stance in the A.K. Gopalan case. It held that Articles 14, 19, and 21 (the golden triangle) are interlinked and that any “procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary.
41. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
In its most significant judgment ever, the Supreme Court introduced the “basic structure doctrine, ruling that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its fundamental features. This historie verdict cstablished a permanent check on legislative power and preserved the core identity of the Indian Constitution.
📌 MISCELLANEOUS
42. Hiral P. Harsora and Anr. v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors. (2016)
The Supreme Court struck down parts of the definition of “respondent” in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which had limited it to only adult males. The court held that this was discriminatory and ruled that a woman can now file a complaint against her female relatives (like a mother-in-law or sister-in-law) under the domestic violence law.
43. Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (2022)
The Supreme Court significantly expanded the interpretation of “shared household” under the Domestic Violence Act. It held that a woman has the right to reside in a shared household, even if she is not living there at the time of filing the complaint, as long as it was the place where she lived in a domestic relationship.
44. Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court recognized sexual harassment in the workplace as a violation of fundamental rights. The court laid down a comprehensive set of mandatory guidelines (known as the ‘Vishaka Guidelines’) for employers to prevent and address sexual harassment, which remained law until the enactment of the POSH Act in 2013.
45. In Re: Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2024)
The Supreme Court directed that the term “Child Pornography” be replaced with “Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material” (CSEAM) in legal proceedings to reflect the gravity of the crime. It ruled that the mere possession or watching of such material is a punishable offence under the POCSO Act.
46. Vibhor Garg v. Neha (2025)
The Supreme Court ruled that secretly recorded telephonic conversations between spouses are admissible as evidence in matrimonial proceedings (like divorce) to prove cruelty. The Court held that the right to privacy cannot be used as a shield to prevent the production of relevant evidence in a family court.
47. Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025)
The Supreme Court held that compelling an accused or witness to undergo narco-analysis, polygraph, or brain mapping tests without their consent violates the right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)) and personal liberty (Article 21). Such tests cannot be forced even for the purpose of investigation or bail.
48. Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025)
The Supreme Court ruled under the Senior Citizens Act (2007) that a gift deed executed by an elderly parent can be declared void if the child fails to provide basic amenitics and physical needs. The Court clarified that the condition to “maintain” the parent can be implied from the circumstances and need not always be explicitly written in the deed.
49. Ram Charan v. Sukhram (2025)
The Supreme Court held that tribal women (specifically from Scheduled Tribes) are entitled to an equal share in their father’s ancestral property, applying the principles of the Constitution (Right to Equality). The Court ruled that the non-application of the Ilindu Succession Act to tribes does not mean female heirs can be denied their right to inheritance.
50. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) v. The State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court ruled that if the government fails to communicate a valid, reasoned order on a company’s closure application within the 60-day statutory period, the permission to close is automatically “deemed” to have been granted. This judgment affirmed that procedural delays or unauthorized communications from govemment officials cannot override an employer’s statutory right to deemed approval for closing their business.