Skip to main content

Top 10 Supreme Court cases in India by GPT 4.0

 Here are links to more detailed information about some of the landmark Supreme Court judgments :

1. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): This case led to the first amendment of the Indian Constitution. (

2. Golaknath v. State Of Punjab (1967): This judgement significantly impacted the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. (

3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark case introduced the Basic Structure doctrine. (

4. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992): This case established the right to education as a part of the right to life. (

5. Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India (1992): A key case on the issue of reservations and the concept of the "creamy layer". (

6. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India: This ruling struck down Section 66A of the IT Act. (

7. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985): This case extended the right of maintenance to a divorced Muslim woman. (

8. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018): This judgment decriminalized adultery in India. (

9. Navtej Singh Johar and others v. Union of India (2018): This landmark ruling decriminalized homosexuality. (

10. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and others (2020): This case addressed the issue of Internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir. (

Each of these judgments has played a crucial role in shaping the legal and constitutional framework of India.


Popular posts from this blog

20 more interesting and significant legal cases in the history of the UK by GPT4.0

  Here are 20 more interesting and significant legal cases in the history of the UK, which have had a considerable impact on various areas of law: 1. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993): Addressed the legality of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from a patient in a persistent vegetative state. 2. Ridge v Baldwin (1964): A significant case in administrative law, involving the improper dismissal of a Chief Constable. 3. Pepper v Hart (1993): Established that when interpreting statutes, reference can be made to the Parliament's debates for clarity. 4. Woolmington v DPP (1935): A fundamental case in criminal law, establishing the principle that the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt (presumption of innocence). 5. Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990): Important for establishing the test for a duty of care in negligence law. 6. Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (2003): Key case in employment law, particularly on the issue of sex discrimination.

"Woolmington v DPP (1935)" by GPT4.0

  "Woolmington v DPP (1935)" is a landmark case in English criminal law, particularly concerning the principle of the burden of proof in criminal trials. Here's a detailed summary: Background - Date: 1935 - Parties: Woolmington (Appellant) vs. Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) - Context: The case revolved around a murder charge against Reginald Woolmington. Facts - Incident: Woolmington was charged with the murder of his wife. Initially, it was presumed that he needed to prove he had not murdered her. - Initial Trial: Woolmington was found guilty at the initial trial, where the burden was effectively placed on him to prove his innocence. Legal Proceedings - Appeal: The case was appealed up to the House of Lords, challenging the conviction on the grounds of misdirection regarding the burden of proof. Judgment - Decision: The House of Lords overturned Woolmington’s conviction. - Reasoning:   - The Lords established the principle famously known as the “Golden Thre

"Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)" by GPT4.0

  "Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)" is a landmark case in English law, particularly significant in the area of medical ethics and the law regarding end-of-life care. This case dealt with the legal and ethical issues surrounding the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Here's a detailed summary: Background - Date: 1993 - Parties: Airedale NHS Trust (Plaintiff) vs. Anthony Bland (Defendant) - Context: The case involved Anthony Bland, a victim of the Hillsborough disaster who was left in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Facts - Incident: Anthony Bland had been in PVS for three years following the Hillsborough disaster, with no prospect of recovery. - Medical Condition: He was being kept alive artificially by feeding and hydration tubes. Legal Proceedings - Request: The Airedale NHS Trust sought a declaration that it would be lawful to discontinue life-sustaining treatment, including the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration. - Legal Questions: The key le