The 12 months of 2018 was the most eventful 12 months for the Supreme Court as it suggested various selections affecting numerous elements the existence of hundreds for instance Victorian-generation regulation criminalising homosexuality and adultery had been decriminalised, the proper to privacy is hailed as bad in addition to high-quality a essential right, Aadhaar judgment with a bold dissent from Justice Chandrachud maintaining whole Aadhaar Act unconstitutional.
Last 12 months changed into 12 months of change and reform inside the jurisprudence of Constitutional regulation in India and it could also be referred to as transformative Constitutionalism. It began however from the year of 2017 with the decision of ShayaraBano vs Union of India is normally called Triple Talaq judgment in which the constitutional bench of five judges with the aid of the majority of 3:2 held immediate triple talaq or talaq-e-biddat unconstitutional. In October 3rd 2018 the Supreme Court held a ban on access of ladies between the age of 10 to 50 is likewise unconstitutional and held it negates the idea of gender equality enshrined in our constitution and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud even held that this practice additionally violates Article 17 by way of discriminating girls on the basis of purity.
In this Article, we will undergo all of the applicable instances in which the doctrine of vital spiritual exercise takes a look at developed, implemented and reiterated to the Justice D.Y. Chandrachud opinion which held this check as incorrect and upheld constitutional morality over faith.The query of the supremacy of charter morality over faith came to the Supreme Court in 1954 inside the case of Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri LakshmindraThirthaSwaminiarof Sri ShirurMuttpopularly known as Shirur Mutt. In this situation the query of mismanagement of finances of mutt arisen by the agent appointed by the Hindu Endowment board.
The petitioners, in this situation, requested that movements of the board and its agent is violative of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 26 of the charter. In this example, two questions had been raised with reference to Article 25 of the constitution that whether this article which is intended to protect non secular freedom of character can apply for non-secular denominations too? And any other question was associated with Article 26 that whether the mutt comes below the description of religious denomination and if it does what consists of its right to control its very own affairs. Basically, the venture handy was to distinguish between only spiritual sports and secular sports of the mutt. To perceive the spiritual activities the Supreme Court first need to outline what is ‘religion’? The apex court had quoted numerous foreign instances to outline the word faith and given it very large experience by means of saying that:
A faith absolutely has its basis in a system of ideals or doctrines which can be appeared by people who profess that faith as conducive to their religious wellbeing, the Constitution no longer most effective guarantees and shield our freedom of faith however additionally acts accomplished in pursuance of religion and that is made clear by means of the usage of expression ‘exercise of religion in Article 25 of the Constitution. Now coming again to our first questions that whether Article 25 is available for spiritual denominations or no longer. The Supreme Court held that this query is inappropriate because the mutt is in reality not a corporate body it’s far run by a religious head and he’s bound via the obligation to evangelise, practice and propagate the tenets of the religion. The court further stated:
If any law prohibits him in propagating and practicing his religion might be violative of Article 25. Institutions as such, do now not perform religious sports individuals do.
Distinguishing between Religious Activities and Secular Activities
The Supreme Court answered the second one questions quite elaborately whilst bringing up numerous American and Australian instances. It stated via continuing the definition of faith:After studying Article 26 the clause (b) is positioned on a specific footing than the opposite next two clauses which are made problem to the regulation made. It is now clear that merely administrative features are not related to spiritual affairs so they may be made situation to thelaw made by means of a ableauthority.In the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Acharya JagdishwaranandaAvadhuta and Another– Essential part of a faith way the middle ideals upon which a religion is based. Essential practice manner the ones practices which might be fundamental to comply with a spiritual notion. It is upon the cornerstone of critical elements or practices that the superstructure of a religion is constructed, without which a faith will be no religion. Test to decide whether a component or exercise is critical to a religion is to find out whether the character of the faith will be changed without that element or exercise. If the doing away with of that component or exercise should result in an essential alternate within the person of that religion or in its perception, then such component will be dealt with as an important or crucial component. There cannot be additions or subtractions to such part due to the fact it is the very essence of that faith and alterations will change its fundamental character.
It is such permanent essential parts which are protected via the Constitution. Nobody can say that an essential component or practice of 1’s faith has changed from a selected date or by an event. Such alterable elements or practices are surely now not the middle of faith whereupon the belief is based totally, and religion is founded upon. They may want to simplest be dealt with as mere gildings to the non-crucial element or practices. However, in this same case Justice Lakshman in his dissenting opinion held that most effective religious denominations have the proper to decide what practices are essential to their faith and outdoor authority do not have any jurisdiction in it. It is due to the easy cause that human beings training that faith will have a better know-how the nuances of their faith than the judges who are not expert in theology.
He in addition on this dissenting opinion stated that:
What would represent an essential a part of faith or non-secular exercise is to be decided with reference to the doctrine of a specific faith which includes practices which might be seemed by using the community as component and parcel of that faith. Test must be carried out by means of courts whether a specific religious practice is regarded by means of the community practising that unique exercise as an indispensable a part of the faith or no longer. It is likewise essential to determine whether the precise exercise is spiritual in individual or no longer and whether or not the same can be appeared as an integral or crucial part of religion, which has to be decided primarily based on evidence.
Now avital question arises that whether clause (b) of Article 26 is subjected to legislative reforms for social welfare or the throwing open of Hindu religious establishments of a public person to all training and Section of Hindus? This query changed into answered inside the case of State of Mysore vs. State of Venkataraman Devaru and Others. One very persuasive argument opined by using the birthday party announcing that Article 26 is not most effective blanketed Hindus however other spiritual groups as nicely and Article 25 (2) (b) best applies to Hindu temples so it can’t be the intentions of makers of charter to place barriers of Article 25 (2) (b) on one network simplest. Thus Article 26 have to fall outdoor the jurisdiction of Article 25 (2) (b).
The courtroom negating this contention said that:
The solution to this rivalry is that it is miles impossible to study one of these problem into the language of Article 25(2)(b). It applies in terms to all non-secular establishments of a public character without qualification or reserve. As already stated, public institutions would imply no longer simply temples dedicated to the public as an entire however additionally those founded for the benefit of sections thereof, and denominational temples could be comprised therein. However, it seems that at the statistics and instances of this case that Article 26(b) and Article 25(2)(b) are in direct war. So, the court docket has implemented the doctrine of harmonious creation to remedy this obvious battle. This doctrine is essentially a mid-way course between conflicting provisions and the court docket applying this doctrine said that:
If the competition of the appellants is to be conventional, then Article 25(2)(b) turns into completely nugatory in its application to denominational temples, although, as stated above, the language of that Article consists of them.On the opposite hand, if the rivalry of the respondents is common, then full effect can be given to Article 26(b) in all subjects of faith, concern most effective to this that as regards one element of them, access into a temple for worship, the rights declared underneath Article 25(2)(b) will succeed. While, within the former case, Article 25(2)(b) may be placed entirely out of operation, in the latter, effect can be given to each that provision and Article 26(b). We ought to as a result hold that Article 26(b) must be study situation to Article 25(2)(b).
It is apparent from the above ratio decidendi of the court that it indirectly upheld that constitutional morality enshrined in Article 25(2)(b) examine with Article 17 supersedes the non-secular exercise of except for humans from a public establishment solely on the basis of caste or start.However in another case of Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb vs. State of Bombay, the Supreme Court with the aid of the majority of two:1 held that the right of excommunication is an fundamental part of the Dawodi Bohra Community through accepting the petitioners the argument that to maintain the bond of religious harmony and field and on the way to make certain the adherence to its tenets.However the dissenting opinion authored by means of Chief Justice Bhuveneshwar Prasad Sinha was one step in the direction of transformative constitutionalism. He accepted the Attorney General’s argument that proper to excommunicate is not a rely of religion and the act invalidating it is not virtually interfering in the religious affairs. The act is best supposed to defend the civil rights of the person excommunicated. The right to worship at a selected location is a civil right of every man or woman and the legislature can legislate or make a regulation protecting it
The Chief Justice further said that the existing act invalidating the excommunication is:It could be observed that the Act is fruits of the records of social reform which commenced extra than a century in the past with the enactment of Section 9 of Regulation VII of 1832 of the Bengal Code, which supplied, inter alia, that the legal guidelines of Hindus and Muslims shall no longer be accredited to operate to deprive the parties of any property to which, however for the operation of such laws, they would have been entitled.
Those provisions have been finally integrated inside the India Act (21 of 1850) referred to as the Caste Disabilities Removal Act which provided that a person shall now not be deprived of his rights or assets by using motive of his or her renouncing or exclusion from the communion of any religion or being deprived of caste, and that any such forfeiture shall now not be enforced as the regulation inside the courts.
The impugned Act, for that reason, has given full impact to trendy notions of individual freedom to pick one’s manner of existence and to remove all the ones undue and outdated interferences with liberty of conscience, religion, and belief. It is also aimed at making sure human dignity and getting rid of all those restrictions which save you someone from living his own lifestyles so long as he did not intrude with comparable rights of others
He barely hinting to Article 17 of our charter even though no longer declaring it at once said that:On the social component of excommunication, one is inclined to suppose that the placement of an excommunicated man or woman will become that of an untouchable in his community, and if this is so, the Act in affirming such practices to be void has only completed the strict injunction of Article 17 of the Constitution, through which untouchability has been abolished and its practice in any form forbidden. The article in addition offers that the enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. The Act, on this experience, is its logical corollary and need to, consequently, be upheld.
The opinions of Chief Justice Sinha and Justice Lakshamanan within the Avadhutcase apart from being dissenting also are similar in extra approaches:
Firstly, both of those evaluations upheld the constitutionality of regulation amending the connection between non secular denomination and its members by way of bringing man or woman rights at energy to group rights.
Secondly, they each used Article 17 if you want to accomplish that. Justice Lakshmanan read Article 25(2)(b) along with Article 17 and Chief Justice Sinha used the word untouchable in a broader experience with the aid of preserving that excommunication from a non-secularcommunity will bring about making someone as hapless as untouchable or outcasts.However, it can be objected due to the fact traditionally the phrase outcast or untouchable in simplest used in one sense this is caste-based discrimination in Hindu Caste device so Article 17 does no longer have any jurisdiction particularly in Saifuddin case.
Gautam Bhatia says in his blog:The phrase untouchability, understood as a time of art, does no longer include each exercise of exclusion engaged in by means of a collection towards individuals. Rather, it’s miles constrained to a practice ordinary inside the Hindu caste gadget, on the heart of that is the prohibition of physical contract with the ones deemed untouchables, and its consequent spill over into the geographical regions of financial, political and social subordination.So, with a purpose to find out whether those judges were incorrect in making use of Article 17 in the sort of broader sense or not we have to read the concurring opinion of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud within the case of Indian Young Lawyer Association &Ors vs. The State of Kerala &Ors we will deal with the case in element later. At this moment we are best worried what Justice Chandrachud stated approximately the quantity of Article 17.
In the opinion he stated that:Article 17 in textbooks on constitutional law, it’s far a provision which has a paramount social significance each in phrases of acknowledging the beyond and in defining the vision of the Constitution for the prevailing and for the destiny.
Article 17 presents:Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any shape is forbidden. The enforcement of any incapacity arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.Article 17 abolished the age-vintage practice of untouchability, by forbidding its practice in any form. By abolishing untouchability, the Constitution tries to transform and update the conventional and hierarchical social order. Article 17, among different provisions of the Constitution, envisaged bringing into the mainstream of society, people and corporations that might otherwise have rema9ined at society’s bottom. As the time untouchability is not described in the charter so Justice Chandrachud peruses constitutional assembly debates. He brings the ones debates approximately the meaning, extent and defining untouchability into our interest. He quoted K.M. Munshi and other assembly contributors who had been part of the sub-committee constituted for drafting a record on fundamental rights. On the proposal of B.N. Rau the phrase ‘in any form’ turned into introduced to Article 17 which widens the scope of Article 17 from its traditional slender and definition of the word untouchability.
In the judgment he quoted what KM Pannikar has opined about the comprehensiveness of Article 17:If somebody says that he isn’t always going to the touch me, that is not a civil right which I can put in force in a courtroom of law. There are sure complicated of disabilities that stand up from the practice of untouchability in India. Those disabilities are in the nature of civil responsibilities or civil disabilities and what we have tried to provide for is that those disabilities that exist in regard to the character, whether he be a Christian, Muslim or absolutely everyone else, if he suffers from these disabilities, they must be eradicated thru the process of regulation.There have been some extra amendments proposed by the likes of Professor K.T Shah, Naziruddin Ahmed and many others looking for a definition of the word untouchability but a majority of these amendments had been either retracted or rejected. This refusal of constitutional assembly from defining the word untouchability shows that charter makers did not intend to place any caveat or limit at the scope of Article 17. Thus the evaluations of Justice Lakshaman and Chief Justice Sihna had been now not incorrect in fact they had been within the line of the spirit of Article 17 and fulfils the ethos of secularism and its additives equality and freedom as argued by using the bestselling creator Yuval Noah Harari in his book titled 21 lessons for 21st century.
Problems in the essential non secular exercise test
As stated in many instances referred to above that handiest religious groups get to decide what practices are critical for their religion and not out of doors authority has any jurisdiction on this remember. But here one problem arises inside the Hindu faith that isa aggregate of many styles of beliefs because it practices polytheism. It means that what if one unique phase is considering one factor as an critical exercise and every other section hailing different exercise as vital. This hassle was first determined via the Supreme Court within the case of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs. State of Rajasthan.
The courtroom said:If in a given intending, one phase of the community claims that whilst performing positive rites white dress is an crucial part of the faith itself, whereas some other segment contends that yellow get dressed and now not the white dress is the vital a part of the religion, how is the Court going to decide the question? Similar disputes may also get up regarding meals. In cases where conflicting proof is produced in appreciate of rival contentions as to competing spiritual practices the Court may not be capable of resolve the dispute by way of a blind software of the formula that the community decides which exercise in an fundamental part of its religion, because the community may additionally speak with more than one voice and the formula could, consequently, break down. This query will always have to be decided by using the Court and in doing so, the Court may additionally have to enquire whether or not the exercise in query is non secular in character and if it’s far, whether it could be seemed as an crucial or critical part of the faith, and the finding of the Court on such an trouble will always rely on the evidence adduced earlier than it as to the conscience of the network and the tenets of its faith.
The essential trouble in this test is that the judges need to determine complicated questions relating to theology wherein they have no expertise. They must rely upon verses written in holy books that could imply numerous matters and can be twisted to give multiple meanings. It is plain within the real global, for instance, Holy Quran is used by Islamic scholars to educate the lesson of peace and love even as terrorist used the equal Quran to justify their atrocities and killings.
Justice Chandrachud in his judgment in Sabarimala case while upholding constitutional morality against faith said that:For decades, this Court has witnessed claims resting on the essentiality of a exercise that militate against the constitutional protection of dignity and person freedom beneath the Constitution. It is the duty of the courts to ensure that what isblanketed is in conformity with fundamental constitutional values and ensures and accords with constitutional morality. While the Constitution is solicitous in its protection of religious freedom in addition to denominational rights, it must be understood that dignity, liberty, and equality represent the trinity which defines the faith of the Constitution. Together, these 3 values combine t outline a constitutional order of priorities. Practices or beliefs which detract from those foundational values cannot declare legitimacy.
In the historic the judgment of Navtej Singh vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 which decriminalises homosexuality, the courtroom held that:
A discriminatory act can be examined against constitutional values. Discrimination will now not live to tell the tale constitutional scrutiny while it is grounded in and perpetuates stereotypes about a class constituted by means of the grounds prohibited in Article 15(1). If any floor of discrimination, whether direct or oblique is founded on stereotypical information of the function of the sex, it would now not be distinguishable from the discrimination that is prohibited by way of Article 15 at the grounds simplest of intercourse.In the judgment of Sabarimala, the Supreme Court via the majority of 4 held that ban on women access between a long time of 10 to 50 as they’re menstruating is unconstitutional because it violates their right to privacy and their proper to equality. The respondents, but, argued that this ban on access of menstruating girls is an age-vintage custom and a critical part of their religion even though it can cause discrimination. Although they never agreed that it is far discrimination because not all the women are banned and there are other temples of Lord Ayappa in which ladies can go into.
This argument reveals its resonance inside the minority opinion of Chief Justice Khehar within the case of ShayaraBano vs. Union of India where he stated that immediate triple talaq even though horrific in theology however right in regulation because it’s miles practicing in view that 1400 AD and it’s far an critical part of the faith. Nevertheless, most of the people did not consider this vies and held on the spot triple talaq horrific in theology as well as bad in regulation. Justice Chandrachud even carried out Article 17 as it the ban treat ladies as impure and untouchable hence, upholding the precept that discrimination is an antithesis to equality.In all the cases referred to above (besides for Justice Chandrachud’s opinion in Sabarimala) the court docket followed the slim method this is the courtroom ought to limit itself to the technical thing of law and clear up the issue in query pragmatically instead of ideal-orientated and complete one or in different words transformative technique which pursuits on the deep-rooted biases and prejudices in society and take a look at them on the standards of the charter.Another important thing arises after gazing the Supreme Court’s personal jurisprudence referring to Article 25 and 26 is complete of contradictions which makes it very complex. That is why Justice Chandrachud stated that vital religious practice the check ought to be executed away with due to the fact as opposed to solving the problem it increases it.
Decriminalising Homosexuality: End of Victorian Era Section 377 of Indian Penal Code
Another example of constitutional morality is the case of NavtejJohar Singh Vs. Union of India. In this case Supreme Court had overruled its own preceding judgment of Suresh Kaushal vs. Union of India and decimalizes the archaic Section 377 of Indian Penal Code which criminalizes consensual intercourse besides for heterosexual penile-vaginal.This phase endorses the view of Judeo-Christian which defines intercourse is most effective for procreation and any sexual hobby which is non-procreating is unnatural. However, anyone saw this coming mainly after the ancient the unanimous judgment of Justice Puttuswamy vs. Union of India which makes the right to privacy a fundamental right, in other phrases, the judgment of NavtejJohar become just fait accompli.Delhi High Court added this bold choice whilst there was no essential right to privateness and the then government (but Ministry of Family and Health Affairs became alleging that due to Section 377 prevention of HIV/AIDS has been hampered) changed into in opposition to the decriminalization of Section 377 via interpreting the word sex in Article 15 also as sexual orientation hence making any discrimination on the premise of totally on sexual orientation will violative of essential rights.
This decision become brought in severe pressure from right-wing protestors claiming it’s far immoral and unnatural and in the long run Supreme Court in 2014 did no longer upward push to the event because the Delhi High Court did and again criminalizes Section 377 as a result subjugating the LGBT community rights to most of the people desire much like Savigny argues in his Volksgeist idea which says regulation is nothing however human beings spirit and in sensible phrases it approach the law is what majority of people say. Justice Indu Malhotra in her opinion in NavtejJohar had therefore stated that History owes an apology to the LGBT community and kin.
Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Sine vs. Union of India had struck down Section 497 which prescribes the punishment for a person who knowingly had sex with a married lady. The question of decriminalizing adultery had come to Supreme Court on three events and all the time it turned into responded in negative. This section was elaborate because it treats the spouse as a belongings of husband and it does not penalize woman at the same time as an abettor and additionally when the husband had given consent or connivance then this section does not arise consequently making the husband the proprietor of a spouse. However, it became justifies by mentioning Article 15(3) which allows the nation to take any affirmative action for the welfare of girls and children. The courtroom also took the refuse of terms like the sanctity of marriage, the immorality of seducing other guy’s spouse and circle of relative’s values, and so forth.
But the Supreme Court on this judgment opined that:Prima facie, on a perusal of Section 497 of the Penal Code, we find that it presents alleviation to the spouse by treating her as a sufferer. It is likewise worthy to word that when an offence is dedicated by using each of them, one is chargeable for the criminal offence but the other is absolved. It seems to be based totally on a societal presumption. Ordinarily, the criminal regulation proceeds on gender neutrality but in this provision, as we perceive, the said concept is absent. That aside, it’s miles to be seen when there may be conferment of any affirmative right on girls, can it visit the volume of treating them because the victim, in all occasions, to the peril of the husband. Quite other than that, it is perceivable from the language hired within the phase that the fulcrum of the offence is destroyed as soon as the consent or the connivance of the husband is mounted. Viewed from the said situation, the availability absolutely creates a dent on the individual impartial identity of a girl whilst the emphasis is laid at the connivance or the consent of the husband. This tantamount to subordination of a female wherein the Constitution confers equal reputation. A time has come whilst the society must recognize that a lady is same to a person in each discipline. This provision, prima facie, appears to be quite archaic.
Justice Chandrachud while turning in a lecture himself had stated that Constitution is feminist. He said at the occasion that while you follow feminist principles in figuring out, you are simplest giving impact to this significant equality of the charter. He connected transformative constitutionalism with feminism by means of pronouncing that each feminism and transformative constitutionalism are approximately the disruption of societal disruption and poses a assignment to the status quo.
Gautam Bhatia in his weblog had compared untouchability with slavery in America. He said that slavery turned into an outcome of racial hierarchy in which slaves have been now not allowed to visit any public area whereas in case of menstruating girls they’re also now not allowed to visit the temple at the grounds of impurity. This announcement could be very demanding due to the fact slavery changed into considered one of the biggest human tragedies in recent past and if its miles practiced in any shape then it’s far reprehensible.
Justice Chandrachud said the word untouchability is not preceded by any caveat and he further stated that:The incorporation of Article 17 into the Constitution is symbolic of valuing the centuries antique warfare of social reformers and revolutionaries. It is a move by means of the Constitution makers to find catharsis in the face of ancient horrors. It is an try to make reparations to the ones, whose identity changed into subjugated by society.
On the opposite hand Justice Indu Malhotra stated:All styles of exclusion would not tantamount to untouchability. Article 17 relates to untouchability primarily based on caste prejudice. Literally or traditionally, untouchability changed into by no means understood to apply to ladies as a class. The proper asserted with the aid of the Petitioners is not the same as the proper asserted by way of Dalits in the temple access motion. The restrict on ladies within a sure age-band, is primarily based upon the historical beginning and the ideals and practises of the Sabarimala Temple.On plain reading each of those perspectives seems right and justiciable keeping in thoughts particularly Article 14 and Articles 25&26. Justice Indu Malhotra argued that notions of rationality and equality embedded in Article 14 cannot be implemented in spiritual customs and ceremonies due to Article 25.
Whereas Justice Chandrachud argues inside the very start of his opinion:The freedom to consider, to be someone of faith and to be a person in prayer must be fulfilled inside the context of a society which does not discriminate between its citizens Their equality in all subjects of repute and opportunity offers authentic which means to the liberty of perception, faith and worship. Equality between residents is in the end, a effective guard to hold a common universe of liberties between citizens, together with in subjects of faith. Combined, man or woman liberty, equality and fraternity amongst citizens are integral to a social and political ordering wherein the dignity of the man or woman is realised.
But if we see the charter and the purpose of constitutional makers deliberately leaving many aspects of the constitution in vague phrases suggests that constitutional makers repose exceptional trust in future parliamentarians that they could remodel this constitution for the extra excellent of society. Supreme Court shattering the vintage traditional divide of public and private and upholding group views over man or woman gave a totally revolutionary judgment in Sabarimala. Prohibiting someone handiest due to their organic features in twenty first century reflects the static beyond and it is excessive time for our united states of America to shed all these dogmas and embrace humanity.
Our preamble is decorated with 4 standards which are reflective of each democratic revolutionary society: justice, liberty, equality and fraternity and they are now not disjunctive. So, with a purpose to recognize these principles we should prevent rationalizing non secular customs or exercise which is contrary to those standards. It does no longer imply that constitution makers had been not aware about the inexplicable relationship among the majority and religion, the precept liberty consists of freedom of speech, expression, belief, and religion, and so on., however, subjected to the certain obstacles.However, the assessment petition is being filed in Supreme Court to review its choice in Sabarimala case owing huge scale protests.
List of Cases Referred
- Commissioner of Police vs. Acharya Jagdish waranandaAvadhuta and Another– [AIR 1991 Calcutta 263 at 270).
- State of Mysore vs. State of Venkataraman Devaru and Others- AIR 1958 SC 255
- Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb vs. State of Bombay- (AIR 1962 SC 853)
- Indian Young Lawyer Association &Ors vs. The State of Kerala &Ors- 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1690
- Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs. State of Rajasthan- (1964) 1 SCR 561
- Navtej Singh vs. Union of India- (2018) 10 SCC 1
- ShayaraBano vs. Union of India- (2017) 9 SCC 1