📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚

🔰 Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Case, 2018) 🔰 Citation: (2019) 11 SCC 1 https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER ✏️ Background Challenge to the ban on women of menstruating age (10–50 years) entering Sabarimala temple. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER ✏️ Issues Whether ban violates fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15) and freedom of religion (Article 25). https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER ✏️ Judgment Supreme Court held: ⚖️ Ban violates constitutional morality and equality. ⚖️ Religious practices cannot override fundamental rights. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER ✏️ Significance Reinforced constitutional supremacy over tradition. Balanced freedom of religion and gender equality.

🔰 Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 🔰 Citation: (2017) 9 SCC 1 https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔍 Background Challenge to triple talaq (instant divorce) under Muslim Personal Law. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔍 Issues Whether triple talaq violates fundamental rights of Muslim women (Articles 14, 21). https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔍 Judgment Supreme Court held: ⚖️ Triple talaq is unconstitutional. ⚖️ Violates right to equality and dignity of women. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔍 Significance Landmark for women’s rights and gender justice. Led to Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

🔰 Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985) 🔰 https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔮 Background Challenge to government censorship of press during Emergency. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔮 Judgment Supreme Court held: ⚖️ Freedom of press is part of freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)). ⚖️ Restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔮 Significance Strengthened media freedom as part of democracy. Precedent for post-Emergency press protection.

🔰 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) 🔰 Citation: AIR 1950 SC 27 https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🛡 Background Challenge to preventive detention under Preventive Detention Act, 1950. Questioned whether Article 21 protects against preventive detention. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🛡 Judgment ⚖️ Supreme Court took a narrow view: procedure under law is sufficient, no need for fairness test. ⚖️ Preventive detention valid under Article 22. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🛡 Significance Early restrictive interpretation of Fundamental Rights. Later overruled/expanded in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).

🔰 Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) 🔰 Citation: (1996) 4 SCC 37 https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER ⚔️ Background Petitioners challenged government’s failure to provide adequate health and sanitation to rural workers. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER ⚔️ Judgment Supreme Court held: ⚖️ Right to health and medical care is part of Right to Life (Article 21). ⚖️ State must provide basic medical facilities for citizens. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER ⚔️ Significance Strengthened healthcare as a constitutional obligation. Basis for subsequent public health litigation.

🔰 Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 🔰 Citation: (1993) 1 SCC 645 https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🧨 Background Petitioner challenged the proliferation of private unaided schools charging high fees. Issue: whether right to education is a fundamental right. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🧨 Issues Does Article 21 (Right to Life) include the right to education for children? Can the state regulate private schools to ensure access and affordability? https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🧨 Judgment Supreme Court held: ⚖️ Right to education is implicit in Article 21. ⚖️ State has a duty to ensure free and compulsory education for children. ⚖️ Private schools can exist but must be regulated to ensure access and equity. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🧨 Significance Foundation for Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). Expanded Article 21 to include educational rights.

🔰 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 🔰 Citation: 1985 SCC (3) 545 https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 💣 Background Pavement dwellers challenged eviction without rehabilitation. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 💣 Judgment ⚖️ Right to livelihood is part of Right to Life (Article 21). ⚖️ Eviction without due process violates fundamental rights. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 💣 Significance Expanded Article 21 to include livelihood and economic rights. Basis for urban rights and housing protections.

🔰 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 🔰 Citation: (2015) 5 SCC 1 https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🧲 Background Challenge to Section 66A of IT Act, 2000 – criminalised “offensive” online content. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🧲 Issues Whether Section 66A violated freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)). https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🧲 Judgment ⚖️ Supreme Court struck down Section 66A: ⚖️ Violated Article 19(1)(a). ⚖️ Overbroad and vague, leading to chilling effect on free speech. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🧲 Significance Landmark for freedom of expression online. Clarified permissible restrictions under Article 19(2).

🔰 M.C. Mehta Cases – Environmental Law 🔰 https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER a) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) – Ganga Pollution Case 🔷 Factories discharged untreated effluents into river Ganga. 🔷 Court applied polluter pays principle and absolute liability for hazardous industries. 🔷 Landmark for environmental protection under Article 21. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER b) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986) – Taj Trapezium Case 🔶 Pollution threatening Taj Mahal. 🔶 Court restricted polluting industries, enforcing environmental safeguards. https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER 🔲 Significance Established environmental rights as part of right to life (Article 21). Introduced principles like precautionary principle, polluter pays and sustainable development.