Current Affairs Revision For UPSC 2026 Pre | Landmark Supreme Court Judgements | By Bhanwar Singh

0:28 Hey everyone, Jind and welcome to the platform

0:30 of study IQIS in English and my name is Bhar

0:33 Singh Surya MXA 115th course qualified civil services

0:36 in 2012 and I welcome you all on the platform.

0:40 So let's see who is live right now with us.

0:42 If you are live please type in the message and let

0:43 me know that you're watching this session live along with me.

0:47 All right.

0:47 Now, uh as you all know that we are

0:49 covering all those important uh things from which uh you

0:52 know uh nearly every year UPSC ask the questions

0:57 and again uh moving ahead in the series today we'll

1:00 be discussing the landmark Supreme Court judgments that were

1:03 delivered uh by the Supreme Court and ultimately how they

1:07 will be asked and what all is there

1:09 in the complete judgment that we'll be seeing in today's session.

1:13 At the same time till your prelims we will be holding the marathons as well.

1:17 There will be marathons that will be

1:19 conducted on all the platforms of study IQIS.

1:22 So you may watch the marathons as well because

1:25 they are again very important because in those marathon

1:28 sessions you will come to know about what different

1:30 type of questions will be asked in your upcoming prelims.

1:33 So these are the initiatives that we are taking so that you qualify

1:37 your prelims and ultimately you achieve your dream

1:40 to get the service as an administrator.

1:43 Now like I said that today we'll be covering

1:45 the landmark Supreme Court judgments and even the recent Supreme Court

1:49 judgments that had been there and total there will be

1:52 more than 40 of the judgments that we will cover.

1:54 Now when it comes to the priy so you must understand that when

1:58 it comes to the judgments so earlier there were lots of judgments that were

2:02 you know uh that are the landmark judgments that were given by the Supreme

2:06 Court and you must know about them like for example Keshwan and Bharti case.

2:10 In this case the basic structure doctrine was laid down by the Supreme Court.

2:16 Then the main Gandhi case where the due

2:18 process was expanded under the article 21.

2:22 Then SR Bulma again very very important because it deals

2:25 with federalism as well as the president's rule as well.

2:29 Then Indra Sony case in which the ceiling on the reservation was uh provided

2:34 and 50% ceiling was decided by the Supreme

2:37 Court along with extension of the reservation

2:40 that was given to the other backward classes and again very important is KS

2:45 Puttas Swami case in which the right

2:47 to privacy was declared as the fundamental rights.

2:50 Now these are the most important cases that you must master while you are

2:54 preparing for or you are going forward and you are sitting in the prelims 2026.

2:59 At the same time when it comes to the UPSC

3:01 UPSC test you for these cases as well.

3:04 There is Midva Mills case there is another case that is Ayar Ko and Naft Johar.

3:10 All right.

3:11 At the same time when it comes to the uh you know economically weaker sections.

3:15 So there is another case that is

3:17 of the reservation that was provided to economically weaker section.

3:21 Shyra Bano case is also very important.

3:23 Then when it comes to the disclosure all right there was a case

3:28 in which the Supreme Court have said that the candidate disclosure is very

3:32 important and the candidates who are you know who are contesting the elections

3:36 they have to disclose their criminal proceedings

3:39 which are going against them as well.

3:41 All right.

3:41 Again related decisions they are again in the focus for the UPSC and you will

3:46 be asked about them when whenever such

3:48 kind of you know code judgments they come.

3:51 At the same time there are also environmental

3:53 principles which had been shaped by the law judgment by MC Maha cases as well

3:58 as by Godman case again they are very very important.

4:03 So which are the most important cases the landmark

4:06 cases that you must understand and you must go through.

4:09 Now the first of all it is about the electoral reforms.

4:12 Now again we know that recently the state elections had been conducted

4:16 and therefore these cases they become very important for the UPSC perspective.

4:21 All right.

4:21 The first and the foremost landmark case

4:23 when it comes to the electoral reform is

4:26 the case of the or the case that is association for democratic reforms or ADR.

4:32 This was in 2002 and here Supreme Court have said

4:36 that the voters have the right to know about the candidate.

4:40 The candidate who is contesting the election, the background,

4:43 the assets, the liabilities as well as his education details.

4:47 So these are the things that a candidate or you know about the candidate

4:51 that a person must know and thereby it

4:54 laid down that there should be a complete disclosure

4:57 of the candidates whenever a candidate is contesting

5:00 the election and Supreme Court said that this is

5:03 the right to know is basically where a person is you know casting his vote.

5:09 So therefore he has right to information which is again inherently there

5:12 in article 191A and we know that RTI act that is right to information

5:17 act is also inherently given by the supreme court by the article

5:22 191A that is right to uh freedom of speech as well as expression.

5:27 Then there is another case that is PUCL and this case was in 2003.

5:32 over here what Supreme Court did was

5:34 that it reinforced the voter information rights

5:37 and linked the disclosure to the free

5:40 and fair elections that we have in the country.

5:44 Then in 2013, Lily Toma's case was there

5:47 and it led to uh the discuss the decision

5:51 by the Supreme Court that there will be immediate

5:53 disqualification of the convicted legislature on the specific grounds.

5:58 All right.

5:58 So if any of the legislator who is there in the seat

6:03 and he is convicted of you know two years or more than two years

6:07 then he would have to leave his seat and this was decided

6:10 by the Lily Thomas case in 2013

6:13 again very important for your upcoming examination.

6:17 All right.

6:17 So it is very very important and at the same

6:19 time when it comes to the public interest

6:21 litigation the line on the criminalization as well as political

6:24 accountability and this all keeps the complete issue alive

6:28 when it comes for the UPSC and UPSC links

6:31 these of the important case decisions that were taken

6:35 by the Supreme Court and again it is very important

6:38 because recently we had the elections in the state assemblies.

6:43 All right.

6:44 Now when it comes to the fundamental rights,

6:46 these are again important landmark judgments related to the fundamental rights.

6:50 The first one is AK Gopalan case.

6:52 So in AK Gopalan case, Supreme Court it took initially a narrow

6:56 point of view and over here it compartmentalized

7:00 the view of the rights of or the fundamental

7:03 rights that are given in the constitution.

7:05 But later on in Minka Gandhi's case,

7:08 it had transformed the everything when it comes to the Supreme Court.

7:11 So over here in my Minka Gandhi case it

7:14 said the article 21 is you know ultimately it is

7:17 where we have to insist upon the fairness upon

7:21 the reasonleness and the nonarbitrariness of the complete uh institution.

7:27 All right.

7:27 Article 21 that lays down for the uh right to life as well as personal liberty.

7:32 So over here there were two things all right there there is due process of law

7:36 that was justified by the Supreme Court when it

7:40 comes to Marina Gandhi case and after main Gandhi

7:43 case you will see that when it comes to the Supreme Court article 14 article 19

7:47 as well as article 21 they were read together

7:50 in most of the liberty cases that are there.

7:53 Then when it comes to a very important benchmark

7:56 in the constitutional history of India we have Keshwan and Bharti case.

8:01 Now, Keshwan Bharti case is very important because this was a judgment

8:05 and when it comes to the complete bench of the Keshwaran Bharti case,

8:10 this was the largest bench of the Supreme Court that gave

8:13 this or pronounced this judgment where it led to the layown

8:17 of the basic structure doctrine and that is that the parliament

8:21 it does not have unlimited amendment powers that are there.

8:25 The parliament it could not amend the basic structure that is there.

8:29 Again you have to note that when it comes to the basic

8:31 structure so the basic structure is not actually defined by the Supreme Court.

8:37 Now basic structure is a kind of evolving

8:40 perspective and through the later on judgments

8:43 Supreme Court have clarified which all could

8:45 be the parts of the basic structure doctrine.

8:48 All right.

8:49 Then again Minva Mills case it has restored the balance

8:52 that is there between the fundamental rights and the director principles.

8:55 So this is again very very important for your upcoming prelims examination.

9:00 Now when it comes to fundamental rights,

9:02 there are certain rights which have evolved by the Supreme Court or you can

9:06 say that these are the modern rights

9:08 that have been granted by the Supreme Court.

9:11 The first and the foremost is the KSpas Swami judgment that was there in 2017.

9:17 Now through this uh judgment by puta swami judgment the right

9:21 to privacy or the privacy was recognized as a fundamental right

9:25 and it was said that the right to privacy is basically

9:29 li it is rooted in liberty it is rooted in dignity

9:32 as well as autonomy as well now the next important

9:39 case is ntage singh jawar case in 2018 now this was

9:44 a case where the consensual samesex

9:46 relationships they were decriminalized and there

9:49 was constitutional morality that was emphasized by Na Singh Johar case.

9:54 Then again when it comes to the uh rights of the Muslim womens.

10:00 So there was the case in 2017 that is Shyra Banu case

10:04 and through this case again it is very important a landmark case

10:07 because through this case instant three triple tarak that was invalidated

10:12 and the gender justice was reinforced when it comes to the Muslim women.

10:17 All right.

10:18 And also when it comes to Joseph Shine case in 2018 over

10:22 here the adultery law was struck

10:24 down as unconstitutional and even paternalistic.

10:27 So again these are the important cases when

10:29 it comes to the modern rights which are there.

10:32 Then when it comes to the federalism in the terms of the federalism you will

10:36 see that SR Bombay is the most important case when it is about the federalism.

10:42 It was in 1994.

10:44 And over here the article 356 that is article 356 is about the president's rule.

10:52 All right.

10:52 It is president's rule and over here when it comes to SR Mumbai case

10:57 it was said that when it comes to the use of the article 356 there

11:01 could be judicial review that could have or that could happen and the central

11:06 government it cannot arbitrarily you know impose

11:10 the president rule in any of the state.

11:12 So again this is a major curb that was there

11:15 on the arbitrary powers of the central government as well

11:19 as this also laid down that the flow test principles had

11:22 been emphasized in the SR bombay case and again this is very

11:26 important when it comes to your upcoming prelims state government they

11:29 cannot dismiss the governments or the state

11:33 government casually on the subjective

11:34 political grounds after the Bombay and this has turned the complete

11:38 tide that we have seen in the Indian political atmosphere.

11:42 Because before this what used to happen was that the usage

11:47 of 356 was in the hands of the central government.

11:51 The federalism was recognized as a part of the basic structure again

11:55 in this uh case and a broader constitutional disclosure and again when it comes

12:00 to the recent center and state disputes that keeps the bombay relevant

12:05 and again you could be asked question

12:06 about it indirectly in your prelims examination.

12:10 Now another burning case or the another burning topic

12:13 that we have is the reservation that is there in India.

12:16 All right.

12:17 When it comes to reservation,

12:18 reservation is the positive discrimination that our constitution allows.

12:22 It allows that there could be special uh you know provisions

12:26 that could be there for the people who are from the backward classes

12:30 or the people who are from shu cast shu tribes as well

12:33 as the uh the socially and economically weaker sections that we have.

12:38 All right.

12:39 Now when it comes to the reservation there is very important

12:41 case that is the Indra Sony case and it was in 1992.

12:46 Now this case it upheld that there could be

12:49 the res reservation that could be provided to the other

12:52 backward classes in principle but at the same time it

12:56 disallowed the reservation in promotion in that ruling as well.

12:59 Now this uh disallowance in promotion that was

13:03 for the OBC uh grades or the OBC class

13:07 and at the same time it also led to the formation of the creamy layer as well.

13:12 All right.

13:13 At the same time we have M Nagaraj case.

13:16 It dealt with the conditions for the reservation for the schedule cast

13:19 shu tribes in the promotion and also when it comes to jhit abhan.

13:23 It is also very important case when it comes

13:25 to the reservation because the verdict or the 103rd

13:30 constitutional amendment act that provided with the economically weaker

13:34 section reservation that was upheld in this janit abhan case.

13:38 So reservations it often requires that there is

13:42 a linking to the equality with the substantive

13:45 justice and ultimately this had been upheld

13:47 by the Supreme Court in the previous judgments.

13:52 Now another when it comes to the judicial activism so there is a sphere

13:56 where we have seen that there were lots of cases that dealt with environment.

14:01 All right.

14:01 There were lots of cases and these cases important one are

14:04 the cases which was filed by MC Meta and these are series

14:08 of cases where this has expanded the environmental governance and even

14:13 the public interest litigation in the terms of environment in India as well.

14:19 All right.

14:19 There is also another important case that is well citizen welfare

14:22 forum which have recognized that there is a precautionary principle and even

14:28 when it comes to the principle of the polluttor pays that is

14:32 you know recognized or that was recognized in the Indian environmental law.

14:37 All right.

14:37 At the same time another important case is TNA case.

14:42 Now this have reshaped the complete definition of the forest in India.

14:47 All right.

14:47 And even after the change of the definition the forest governance

14:51 and the continuing of the mandamus practice

14:53 was also shaped by the supreme court.

14:56 So again ten guada warm case again becomes very important

14:59 and also there is Indian council of for envirro legal action.

15:04 This is another key case when it comes

15:06 to the environmental liability and through this it

15:09 was laid down that the polluttor pays

15:12 and absolute liability lies with the uh polluttor.

15:15 These were the principles that were laid down

15:17 by the Supreme Court in these uh important cases.

15:22 Now at the same time when it comes to the Supreme Court,

15:24 Supreme Court have also uh you know given

15:27 judgments that deals with the judicial review as well.

15:30 And when it comes to judicial review,

15:32 the most important one is Keshwanand Bharti case because over

15:36 here it was held that the judicial review is the basic

15:39 structure of the constitution and it cannot be taken uh

15:43 away from the Supreme Court or even from the high courts.

15:47 All right.

15:47 At the same time case is also there where

15:51 the laws which were placed in the ninth schedule.

15:53 Now nth schedule was used by the government as uh you know as a proxy.

15:59 It was used as a proxy because whatever the laws

16:02 or the judgments the government wanted to be shielded from the judicial review

16:06 they used to place it in the ninth schedule because nine schedule

16:09 it was practically the schedule where the judicial review could not apply.

16:14 But in Ayo case what happened was that it was

16:17 laid down that the laws which are there in the nine

16:19 schedule and if they are placed after the judgment

16:23 of Keshwanand Bharti case all right that is in 17 1973.

16:27 So ultimately they will be or the judicial review they will apply

16:32 that will apply on those laws and those laws will not be immune anymore.

16:37 All right.

16:37 So ultimately again this is a very important case and we

16:40 have seen the NJC case as well that is national judicial appointments

16:45 commission case where again judicial primacy was reaffirmed in the appointments

16:50 and the independence of judiciary was a major concern that was there.

16:55 All right.

16:56 Because when it comes to NJAC,

16:57 so over here what had happened was that we have separation of power.

17:02 All right.

17:02 When it comes to separation of power,

17:03 we have legislature executive which cannot have any impact

17:08 on the judiciary and that is again a basic structure that we

17:11 have in or in the in the constitution that is

17:14 there and again because of this the NJC was struck down.

17:19 Then we have El Chandra Kumar case as well

17:22 which preserved the power of the constitutional courts.

17:25 All right.

17:25 What had happened was that the tribunals the orders from the tribunals

17:29 they could be challenged in the high court or in the Supreme

17:33 Court that was laid down by El Chundrakumar and again

17:36 this is very important case that is or that had happened.

17:40 So these are the important cases

17:42 the landmark cases which happened in the history.

17:45 But what about the previous year or the whole year that is from May

17:48 2025 to May 2026 which are the important cases which you need to go through.

17:54 All right.

17:55 Now when it comes to these cases let's

17:57 discuss these cases as well because these are

17:59 important and we have seen that the Supreme

18:01 the UPSC asked the questions from these cases.

18:04 Now the first one is MK Ranjit Singh versus Union of India

18:08 over here there is the birth of the right against the climate change.

18:13 Now till now Supreme Court have given the right right to clean environment.

18:18 All right.

18:19 This is different from right to clean environment because this is

18:22 the right against the climate change and Supreme Court recognized

18:26 that the constitute constitution confers the the specific right that is

18:31 right to against the adverse effect of the climate change.

18:36 Now ultimately when it comes to the right

18:38 against the climate change this is broader right.

18:41 All right.

18:41 This is broader.

18:42 This is distinct from the earlier right that it

18:45 had laid down the right to clean environment.

18:48 Now this links the article 21 that is right

18:51 to life and personal liberty also article 14 that is

18:56 equality and both of these articles they had been

18:59 underpinned by the directive principle of state policy that is

19:02 under article 48A and even the fundamental duties that is

19:06 under article 51 AG that relates to the environment

19:11 and that is why Supreme Court said that a person

19:14 and every person have the right against the climate change.

19:18 Now this case have arisen or it has arisen from the environmental

19:23 or the existential uh threat that the great Indian bustard or the GIB

19:28 had been caused by the overhead power lines in its habitat and Supreme

19:32 Court said that these overhead power lines they have to be underground.

19:36 All right and again this is very important case

19:38 MK Ranjit Singh where the question could be asked about

19:42 the GIB or great Indian mustard and even about

19:45 the right that had been conferred by the Supreme Court.

19:50 Now the next important case is state of Punjab versus Davindar Singh.

19:54 Now in state of Punjab versus Dawinder Singh

19:56 what happened has or what was uh done was

19:59 that the Supreme Court decimated the homogeneity myth

20:02 in the schedule cast and the schedule tribe reservation.

20:07 Again very important judgments where there was

20:10 a 6 to1 majority ruling in the seventh

20:13 judge constitutional bench which had overruled its previous

20:16 judgment that it gave in Eevee Chinaya case.

20:21 All right.

20:21 Over here it had declared the Supreme Court have declared

20:23 that the state government they are

20:25 constitutionally empowered to create the subclassifications.

20:30 They could create subclassifications within the schedule cast

20:33 and the schedule tribes for preferential reservation benefits.

20:37 All right.

20:38 When it comes to the presidential list,

20:39 the president uh you know the president publishes

20:42 the list of the schedule cast under article 341.

20:46 So the Supreme Court said that this list

20:48 that is published by the president it is or it serves only to identify the cast

20:53 that constitute the schedule cast territory or the category.

20:58 All right.

20:58 At the same time it also says that there should be substantive

21:02 equality that should be provided when it comes to the schedule cast.

21:06 Supreme Court said that there are certain of the you know certain of the people

21:10 who have taken the benefit of the reservation

21:12 but there are certain classes as well.

21:15 the subclassification as well which have not

21:18 been given the benefits of the reservation.

21:21 So therefore over here supreme court said

21:23 that the subclassification can be done when it

21:25 comes to the schedule cast or the schedule

21:27 tribe for giving that substantive equality to them.

21:31 But at the same time this subclass classification it must

21:34 be justified by the quantifiable as well as empirical data regarding

21:39 the inadequate representation and the relative backwardness of these sub

21:45 classification of the uh that that have that will be done.

21:49 All right.

21:49 The next important case is the one recall.

21:53 Now what happened was that over here

21:55 the Supreme Court have recalled its previous judgment.

21:58 Again very important because this deals with the environment.

22:01 All right.

22:01 Over here the Supreme Court have prioritized

22:03 the economic continuity via the principle of proportionality.

22:08 Now what happened was Supreme Court earlier gave its judgment

22:12 and in the previous judgment it had struck down the ministry of ex ministry

22:17 of uh you know forest environment forest and climate change notification which

22:22 allowed for the expos facto clearing

22:25 or the environmental clearances that were given.

22:29 Now over here Supreme Court have said that this is

22:32 or this is earlier judgment was or it was to be per incur.

22:38 Now what is per incuram that is that it

22:41 was delivered in ignorance of the binding law.

22:46 Now what supreme court have let down over here is that the bench have emphasized

22:50 that the principle of proportionality is there and ultimately

22:54 there are the industries which have invested heavily.

22:57 All right.

22:57 They have already invested in thousands of cr rupees

23:00 and if if the exposure environmental clearance they will be discontinued.

23:07 So that will have a devastating impact for the public interest and there it laid

23:13 down the precautionary principle and that is

23:15 the prior approval or mandates the prior approval.

23:19 The court have held that there will

23:20 be retrospective election uh you know the clearances

23:23 that were given environmental clearances they can be

23:26 granted sparingly but only as an exceptional measure.

23:30 It will be only exceptional measure and uh provided

23:34 that these companies these companies will be fined heavily.

23:38 They will be there will be heavy penalties as well

23:41 as mandatory ecological restoration that these companies will have to do,

23:45 these industries will have to do and then only

23:48 the uh you know environmental clearances that could be given after

23:52 the setup of the industries or expos electoral uh uh still

23:58 my mind is in the election complete election that has occurred.

24:02 So exposed to environmental clearances that can be given

24:06 only after there is precautionary principle that had been followed.

24:10 All right.

24:10 The next one is the section 6A of the citizenship act of 1955.

24:16 The Supreme Court have held that this is uh

24:18 you know this is right or it had upheld

24:21 the section 6A of the citizenship act 1955 and over

24:25 here it has taken the rationality of the 1971 cutoff.

24:30 Now when it comes to section 6A of the citizenship act,

24:35 this basically deals with the assam.

24:37 Over here it has said that the five bunch five judge benches.

24:42 Uh it has said that the constitutional validity

24:44 of the section 6A is right and it grants

24:48 the citizenship to the migrants who have migrated

24:51 or entered Assam from Bangladesh before 25th March of 1971.

24:57 Now the provision is over here that the complete

25:00 provision of 6A it was added after the 1985 Assam accord and there are two

25:06 categories that is who have arrived before 1966.

25:10 Now they are actually deemed citizens of the Assam but those who

25:14 have arrived between 1966 and 1977 or 25th March of 1970 uh 1977.

25:23 So these people who have entered Assam from Bangladesh they

25:28 must get registered and ultimately wait for the 10 years after

25:32 which they will be provided with the voting rights and that is

25:34 what section 6A of the citizenship act it stands for.

25:39 Now again when it comes to the presidential

25:42 uh reference so there was the 16th this was

25:45 a 16th president presidential reference that was there

25:47 and in this presidential reference what was asked it was asked

25:51 about the powers of governor that the powers

25:55 or the how much the or if the governor have

25:58 the right to withhold the ascent to any

26:01 of the bill that had been passed by the state legislature.

26:04 Now over here there is that the condition

26:07 of limited mandemus was uh put forward for any

26:11 of the governor governatorial or the inaction

26:15 by the governor while giving the ascent to the bills.

26:19 Now what had happened was that supreme court have clarified

26:22 that the governor's discharge of function that is available under article 200.

26:27 Under article 200 it is basically that the governor

26:30 he can he has options and what are the options.

26:36 The options are either he can he can give the ascent to the bill.

26:43 He can give ascent to the bill or he can uh you

26:47 know he can also reserve the bill for the president as well.

26:52 So the options that are there all

26:53 right discharge of the functions which are there

26:55 under the article 200 that is given

26:58 to the governor they are generally not justiable.

27:01 All right whether the governor is giving the ascent to the bill

27:04 or he is you know reserving the bill for the president.

27:07 So that cannot be that cannot be tested in the uh court of law.

27:12 But at the same time any kind

27:14 of prolonged or unexplained and even indefinite in action

27:18 that is subjected to judicial review and judicial intervention

27:23 that is what the Supreme Court have let down.

27:26 So over here the limited mandemus was laid down.

27:30 All right.

27:31 The main important thing is that limited mandemus was

27:33 laid down where the court could direct the governor

27:37 to act within a reasonable time frame on the bills

27:40 which had been passed by the state legislature.

27:43 Please remember over here that there is no absolute

27:46 or the pocket veto that exists for the governor

27:49 that was laid down by the Supreme Court and the governor's

27:52 exercise of the discretion that is also not justiable.

27:58 The important another important case is of Harish Rana versus Union of India.

28:03 Now when it comes to this case over

28:04 here the euthanasia as well as the recognition

28:08 of CH that is clinically assisted nutrition

28:11 and hydration they were treated as the medical treatment.

28:16 So that was where this uh the complete case it revolves around.

28:20 Now when it comes to the Harish Rana case,

28:22 so what has happened is that over here Supreme Court

28:25 have expanded the horizon of right to die with dignity.

28:29 All right.

28:30 Over here it has said that earlier the you know when

28:33 it comes to the earlier judgment uh in Aruna Shanbach case.

28:37 Okay.

28:37 Again very important uh judgment that was passed by the Supreme Court.

28:45 This is Aruna Shanbach case.

28:47 In Arunach Shanbok case,

28:48 Supreme Court laid down the principle of passive euthanasia.

28:52 There are two kinds of euthanasia that is active which is where there is

28:56 injection of any lethal uh drug and that leads to the death of the patient

29:02 that is active utricia and passive utricia is where the life support system is

29:07 uh you know it is taken out and ultimately a patient dies because of this.

29:12 Now when it comes to the act the passive utricia that was laid down

29:16 or the principle was laid down in Arunacha Shanbach case in Harishana case what

29:20 had happened was that the right to die with dignity that was expanded

29:25 by permitting the passive euthanasia for a patient

29:28 who was in a permanent vegetative state.

29:31 All right.

29:31 He was in permanent vegetative state for 13 years.

29:35 A court have held that any kind of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration

29:40 that is being delivered through the PG

29:42 tubes that is a medical treatment rather than

29:45 the basic primary care and over here what can happen is that the CH can

29:51 be withheld or withdrawn if the medical

29:54 experts they determine that the condition is irreversible.

29:58 Now the same thing this has uh or the complete judgment it has reversed

30:02 the findings that the Supreme Court had

30:04 in Aruna Shanborg case because in Aruna Shanbach case

30:08 Supreme Court it denied that the uh

30:10 clinically assisted nutrition as well as the hydration

30:13 that cannot be taken out or that cannot be stopped or it cannot be withheld.

30:18 So ultimately over here the scope of the passive utia had been increased.

30:24 All right.

30:24 And also when it comes to the continued

30:26 intervention that does not serve the patient's best

30:29 interest and that is what Supreme Court laid

30:32 down in its judgment in Harish Rana case.

30:36 Now the next one is or next important

30:38 case is Pragya Prasoon versus Union of India.

30:42 Now over here it is very important that Supreme

30:44 Court said that the digital excess is a constitutional imperative.

30:49 In this case, the Supreme Court recognized that the digital divide is

30:53 or it act as a barrier to the fundamental freedoms which are there

30:57 and the court uh declared that the digital

31:00 excess is basically a imperative right

31:03 that is there under article 21 that is right to life and personal liberty.

31:09 It also issued a series of 20 directions that were issued

31:13 for the government so that they could make the digital KYC processes,

31:17 banking services and even the government portals which are

31:21 accessible or which should be accessible for the person

31:24 with disabilities including those which which have the visual

31:28 impairment and the asset attack survivors as well.

31:31 And this is the first time that the Supreme Court have let down

31:34 that digital inclusion has been or it

31:36 is directly linked to the right to dignity.

31:39 All right.

31:39 So again it is linked to or it is inferred or imperative right under article 21.

31:44 That is what Supreme Court have said in its judgment.

31:49 Now the important another important judgment that was

31:52 there by the Supreme Court was all judges association.

31:55 In this it was uh important because it

31:58 had restored the professional rigor in the judiciary.

32:02 Now over here what had happened is very important all right that the Supreme

32:06 Court have said over here the Supreme Court have said that there will

32:10 be a minimum of 3 years of the legal practice at the bar

32:15 for the eligibility for being appointed

32:18 in the civil judge or junior division entrance examination.

32:22 Now let me tell you about this that this is

32:24 right now the Supreme Court is reviewing it.

32:27 It is under the review and uh this is

32:30 under the review that is going on right now.

32:32 All right.

32:33 So this has been uh decided but at the same

32:36 time it is under review that is going on.

32:38 In the another matter that was uh earlier in Rajnish Ki versus Kepa the court

32:44 have laid down that the judicial officers

32:46 those who have combined experience of seven years.

32:51 Combined experience of 7 years that is bar plus bench experience they will

32:56 be eligible for the direct recruitment as the district judge under article 233.

33:02 So over here the both the judgments whether it is the judgment

33:06 in all in all India judges association or in the Rajnesh

33:10 KV versus Kepa these judgments they seek to enhance the quality

33:14 of the adjudication that is there in the subordinate judiciary and also

33:19 it handles when it comes to the subordinate judiciary this handles

33:22 the most of the country's litigation that we can see all right

33:29 now coming to the next uh important judgment that we have over

33:32 here is this is or this relates to the right to vote.

33:38 We have seen that Supreme Court in its various judgments uh you know

33:43 there there were cases that were or that went to the Supreme Court about

33:47 the status of the right to vote because of the SIR process that is

33:51 going on or the special intensive revision that is going on right now.

33:56 So when it comes to the right to vote over here there

33:58 was a transition that we can say from statutory to the fundamental right

34:03 advocacy for the fundamental rights in India because of the election process

34:08 because of the sir process that the company uh the country was witnessing.

34:12 Now there are historical precedents that we have that is NP Puno

34:16 Swami case and even Kulp Naya case that is there and here

34:21 the Supreme Court have let down that the fundamental right the the right

34:25 to vote is basically a statutory right and a legal right.

34:30 All right.

34:31 Now over here what had happened was that there was mass water deletions and also

34:35 arbitrary disenfranchisement and ultimately over here

34:39 the people they have tried to get or elevate the right

34:44 to vote into the fundamental rights category under part three.

34:48 But the court it had said that there are two different rights.

34:51 The right to vote and the freedom of voting.

34:54 All right.

34:54 When it comes to right to vote it

34:55 is basically a statutory right under article 326.

34:59 All right.

35:00 And when it comes to freedom of voting,

35:02 it is the expressive act that a person do.

35:05 All right.

35:05 Right to express is basically under the article 191A.

35:09 So therefore, when it comes to freedom of voting, that is a fundamental right.

35:13 But when it comes to right to vote, it is basically a statutory right.

35:17 That was the position that the Supreme Court uh had taken.

35:22 Now the next important judgment that happened in the Supreme Court relates

35:27 to the election commission of India's independence

35:29 and also the article 324 that is there here the Supreme Court have

35:34 scrutinized the independence of the election commission

35:37 of India right now when it comes to this particular you know decision.

35:41 So what had happened was that there is the act that was passed

35:45 by the government and that is chief

35:47 election commissioner and other election commissioners act 2023.

35:52 Now by this act what had happened was that the chief

35:55 justice of India who was the part of the selection

35:58 of the chief election commissioners and the election commissioners the CGI

36:02 had been excluded from the select committee or from the selection panel.

36:07 Now over here again it is very important

36:09 that Supreme Court is still examining the complete issue.

36:13 All right.

36:13 It is currently examining if the act violates

36:16 the constitutional principle of the independent and impartial election

36:20 authority that had been established by the previous judgment

36:24 in Anup Bunwal versus Union of India in 2023.

36:29 So over here immediate stay had been declined by the Supreme

36:32 Court but at the same time court have upheld

36:35 that the election commission have the plenary powers which are there

36:38 under article 324 to conduct free and fair elections in India which

36:43 also includes the transfer of senior officials during the poll time

36:47 and it also emphasized that there is unchecked power which is

36:51 alien to our system that any institution that is there

36:54 in our system there is a check on the power that remains.

36:59 All right.

36:59 So again this is what has happened related

37:01 to the electoral or the election commission of India.

37:05 Now there is work for amendment act 2025

37:08 that was passed by the parliament as well.

37:11 Now related to this amendment act there were

37:13 lots of petitions that were filed in the supreme

37:15 court and what supreme court did supreme court

37:18 balanced the secular governance with the religious autonomy.

37:21 Here Supreme Court delivered an interim judgment

37:24 in the petitions that seek or they

37:26 they have seek a blanket stay on the work for amendment act of 2025.

37:32 And here it has said while it has refused a journal stay.

37:36 It has stayed the section 3R of the Waka amendment uh act that was passed.

37:42 And this section 3R it mandates that a person must

37:46 practice Islam for at least 5 years before creating a work.

37:52 Now over here the Supreme Court said

37:54 that there is no verification methods or mechanism

37:58 that a person have practiced Islam for like 5 years before creating a work.

38:03 So again this is something that cannot be justified.

38:07 Also court have upheld that there could

38:09 be or there will be mandatory registrations of the work and the requirement

38:13 that only owners which have dedicate property aiming

38:17 to resolve long-standing disputes regarding the protected

38:20 monuments and the tribal lands they will

38:22 be or they are being declared as wak is right in the amendment act.

38:29 All right.

38:30 The next important uh judgment that happened in the Supreme

38:33 Court is the Kalyani transcope versus Bushian power and steel.

38:38 Now in this what had happened was

38:40 that Supreme Court resolved the conflict between

38:43 IBC and ED that is the insolveny

38:46 and bankruptcy code and the enforcement directorate.

38:50 Now over here what has happened was that there was

38:53 a resolution applicant under the inf insolvency and the bankruptcy

38:57 bankruptcy code and the supreme court ruled that that any

39:01 company that had been revived through the resolution plan.

39:05 All right.

39:06 What happens is that if any company gets insolvent so after getting insolvent

39:10 there are the insolveny and bankruptcy

39:13 code that applies to that particular company.

39:16 And there could be two things.

39:18 The first thing is that there is a revival of that company that happens

39:21 through a resolution plan or if it could not be revived then the company you

39:27 know the the liquidation of the assets that happens and then the people who

39:32 have the you know uh debt over

39:34 the company they are repaid through that liquidation.

39:37 So over here what the Supreme Court said that if

39:40 any company had been revived through the IBC code

39:43 and that is through a resolution plan should not be

39:47 penalized for the past illegalities of its uh former promoters.

39:52 So once a resolution plan is

39:53 approved and implemented so automatically the assets

39:56 of the company should be immune from the attachment

40:00 by the agencies like for example enforcement

40:02 direate for the sins of the previous

40:05 management and ultimately this provides that there

40:08 will be a clean slate protection that is if a company after the IBC proceedings

40:15 all right after the insolveny pro proceedings if there is a resolution plan

40:19 and a company is revived through the resolution

40:21 And so that means that company is now

40:23 clean and that clean state protection had been provided which is very important

40:28 for the success of the IBC code and even the ease of doing business in India.

40:35 Now the next important case that was decided

40:38 by the Supreme Court is PI Koshik Redi versus state.

40:42 Now in this uh state uh in in this uh uh case there had been guardrails that had

40:48 been provided for the speaker's uh discretion.

40:52 Now again it is very important because these this deals with the 10th schedule.

40:58 All right.

40:59 This is again very important because 10th schedule was in the news.

41:03 All right.

41:04 So over here it is very important to note

41:06 that any anything that has been in news

41:08 and it connects to any of the Supreme Court

41:10 judgment that becomes automatically important for your upcoming prelims.

41:14 So over here the Supreme Court have

41:16 placed a critical guardrail on the speaker discretion

41:18 that is there in the 10th schedule

41:21 that is for the anti-defectionection law and it says

41:25 that while the speaker has the primary authority

41:28 to decide on the disqualification petitions all right

41:31 p the speaker has the primary authority the chairman

41:34 has the primary authority depending upon the house.

41:37 So in Lok Sabha or state legislative assembly it is the speaker but at the same

41:41 time when it comes to the Rajya Sabha

41:44 or state legislative council it is the chairman.

41:46 So they have the primary authority

41:47 to decide over the disqualification proh proceedings

41:50 or the pro petitions but this jurisdiction

41:54 is not immune from the judicial review.

41:58 If there is a collarable uh exercise of power or any

42:03 kind of inordinate delay that defeats the purpose of the law.

42:07 Now this is very important because it signals the potential

42:10 end to the inaction of that that is basically taken

42:14 by the speaker or the chairman when you know when

42:17 they are protecting the defecting members of the ruling party.

42:20 All right.

42:20 Like for example, we have seen that there had been seven

42:24 of the members from the Amadi party who have joined the BJP.

42:27 Now if there will be an petition

42:30 that that is about the defection of these parties.

42:34 So now the chairman of the Rajya Sabha will have to decide.

42:37 Earlier what used to happen was to protect the ruling

42:40 party they used to sit and they do not

42:43 used to take any action and that is what had

42:45 been reversed by the Supreme Court by this particular judgment.

42:49 And again this is very important once again because

42:52 anti-defectionection had been in the news in the previous times.

42:56 Then now next important uh of the uh

42:58 judgment is Gayatri Balaswami versus ISG Noasoft.

43:03 Now this is very important because the it limits

43:06 the the limits of the modifying arbitrary awards had been

43:10 discussed over here and it says that the five

43:14 bungees five judge bench it had held that the appilate

43:18 codes they have limited power when it comes

43:20 to modifying the arbitral award that has been provided

43:24 or it has been uh you know there under

43:27 the se section 34 of the arbitration and consiliation act.

43:32 Now here the court have ruled that the courts they

43:34 cannot conduct a merits review or rewrite the complete award because

43:38 this has been uh you know this has been uh uh

43:42 you know reached after a proper arbitration that had been conducted.

43:46 So they possess the power to vary or modify

43:49 it to correct the computational or any clerical or manifest

43:53 errors but do not have the power to completely

43:57 modify the complete arbit the arbitration that have happened.

44:01 So over here the court have distinguished that this is different

44:04 from the power of the supreme court that is there under article 142.

44:09 Now article 142 that is there it gives the special powers to the supreme court

44:14 and over here article 142 it can be

44:17 used sparingly but only to do the complete justice.

44:20 This is exceptional power that the supreme court gets through article 142.

44:26 The next important uh judgment that happened

44:29 in the Supreme Court is Sanjabi Tari versus Kishor S.

44:33 Bkar.

44:34 Now in this judgment what happened was there were

44:36 guidelines for the Czech dishonor pendency that were laid down.

44:40 Now when it comes to the pendency of the Czech dishonor cases they are mounting.

44:45 All right.

44:45 There was a act that was introduced that is negotiable instruments acts or NI

44:50 act and ultimately when it comes to the check bounce earlier it was

44:54 not a crime but now it had been or it had been included under

44:57 the criminal categories and the case can be filed if any check gets bounced.

45:03 Now it says that there is staggeringly high

45:06 of the pendency of the cases when it comes

45:08 to the check bounce cases and Supreme Court

45:10 have issued extensive guidelines under the negotiable instruments act.

45:15 All right.

45:16 Now what will happen?

45:17 So it had clarified that a signed check a signed

45:21 check it carries a legal presumption of being a valid debt.

45:25 All right.

45:25 If I'm giving a check to someone I have signed that.

45:28 So ultimately it is a presumption that there is a valid

45:31 debt that is there and this shifts the burden of proof

45:35 to the drawer that he has that debt that I have

45:39 to repay him and bench have noted that there is the primary

45:42 goal that is there when it comes to section 138

45:45 of the NI Act or the negotiable instruments act and this is

45:49 to ensure that there is the credibility of the checks which are

45:52 there and ultimately facilitate the commercial

45:55 transaction rather than just a retribution.

45:58 ion that is there.

45:59 All right.

45:59 So this this is again important when it comes

46:02 to the uh important judgment that was given by the Supreme Court.

46:07 Now again these are some of the important

46:08 judgments which had happened in the past one year.

46:11 Again they are very important because they touches the various fundamentals

46:15 of the constitution or the sub theme when it comes to the legal regime.

46:19 So we have SV Union versus Union of India that happened

46:22 in 2026 and it is where the Supreme Court have allowed the termination

46:28 of a 28w week pregnancy for a minor uh and ultimately

46:32 it prioritize that there is women

46:33 autonomy over the paternalistic state interest.

46:37 So this is very important because it links to article

46:40 21 that is right to life and personal liberty.

46:44 Then we have Satyan Naravour versus Union of India.

46:48 And here the Supreme Court have held

46:50 that the incarceration does not dilute the right to dignity.

46:55 And ultimately the prevent the the uh you know disability act or the protection

47:02 the person with disability act of 2016

47:05 that applies to the custodial settings as well.

47:08 That is in the custody in the jails.

47:10 They should have the ramps as well as the toilets

47:13 which should be friendly to the person with disability.

47:18 The next important uh uh case was

47:21 Babu Singh versus consolidation officer and over

47:24 here the Supreme Court have ruled

47:26 that the SDOS's they cannot change the land category.

47:29 The land category can be changed only by the state government and not

47:32 by the SDO and they are reserved

47:35 for if they are reserved for the public utility.

47:37 So again this links with the seventh

47:39 schedule that we have uh in our constitution.

47:42 So again this is very important.

47:44 Then comes the union of India versus Rohit Natan.

47:48 Over here in Rohit Natan case Supreme Court have let down that the parental

47:52 salary alone it cannot determine the creamy

47:55 layer status for the other backward classes.

47:58 All right.

47:58 There is the post as well as status and the historical disadvantage that must

48:03 be assessed while uh you know we are assessing the other backward classes.

48:07 Again it links to the article 164 that provides

48:10 to the reservation to uh other backward classes as well.

48:15 All right.

48:16 The next one is the uh Hamsan Nandi Nanduri versus Union of India.

48:22 Now over here the Supreme Court have stuck down

48:24 the uh three month of the age limit the three

48:28 month of the age limit that was for the adoptive

48:30 children to qualify the mothers for the maternity benefits.

48:34 All right.

48:35 So this limit or the 3-month limit of the age that had been struck down

48:39 and ultimately Supreme Court said that this is

48:41 arbitrary as well as discriminatory in nature.

48:45 All right.

48:45 Then comes the Christian conversion case.

48:48 In this the Supreme Court have reaffirmed

48:50 that if any person gets converted to Christianity.

48:54 So he automatically estues his Supreme Court status

48:59 as it is in the 1950 order that it is limited that the schedule cast they can

49:05 convert to Hindus to Sikh and the Buddhist only.

49:09 All right.

49:09 So ultimately if a person is getting converted to Christianity his SC status

49:13 will get lost and that is what the uh about right to safe travel

49:18 that is under article 21 and here

49:20 the supreme court have declared that the safety

49:23 from road accidents on highways it is a fundamental right and by moving

49:28 ahead supreme court have said that or ordered that there should be removal

49:33 of the unauthorized eeries in the highway zone so that the life could be

49:37 protected and there is a right to safe travel that is again it

49:41 was said that it is inferred under article 21 that is right to life.

49:46 Then comes the bulldozer justice of 2026.

49:50 Now when it comes to bulldozer justice we have seen that the government have

49:53 used the bulldozer for demolishing various

49:56 of the houses that were there of the miscreants.

49:59 Over here the Supreme Court have emphasized that the demolition

50:02 without due process that is that is without

50:04 any FIR without any notice that violates the right

50:08 to property as well as the rule of law.

50:10 So this connects directly to the article 300NA

50:14 where the right to right to property is now

50:17 a uh constitutional as well as a regal

50:20 right that is available to the citizens of India.

50:24 The next is about the apnea test scrutiny.

50:28 All right.

50:28 And when it comes to apria test, it is very important test when it comes

50:31 to determining if a person is brain dead or not.

50:35 So over here Supreme Court have said that the examining if

50:38 the apnea test is used for the brain death is inconclusive.

50:42 And at the same time it said that there is a potential that the appria

50:46 test in in itself it could induce the brain death to the person.

50:51 So therefore this should not be used

50:53 and this was clarified by the Supreme Court.

50:56 And then there is Corbett Tiger reserve case in which

50:59 the Supreme Court have directed the restoration of the filling

51:03 sides and also institutionalized the central empowered committee or CEC

51:09 as a permanent body in the Jim Corbett National Park.

51:16 The next is The next one is about uh the Wakboard composition.

51:26 In Wakboard compos composition,

51:28 the Supreme Court have kept the non-Muslim membership

51:31 and recommended that the CEOs should be Muslims.

51:35 It highlights that the state has a secular

51:38 regulation of the religious trust that should be maintained.

51:42 The next important act is the summary judgment order uh 13A.

51:47 Over here the Supreme Court have established the guidelines

51:50 for the summary judgment in the commercial suits which are there

51:53 to bypass the long trials when the defense is fanciful

51:58 and that was what had been laid down by Supreme Court.

52:01 Then comes the adoptive mother maturity.

52:04 So I have already discussed that that it has struck down section 64 60 clause 4

52:11 of the social security code by placing or that had

52:13 placed the age limits on the adoptive children.

52:16 So there was an age limit of 3 months

52:19 and that had been struck down by the Supreme Court.

52:22 Then is CP Francis versus CP Joseph.

52:25 This is where the Supreme Court have ruled that the family relations or any

52:29 frictions which is there between the family they do not invalidate a will.

52:34 The testator's intent is the supreme consideration

52:38 that is taken into consideration while deciding whether

52:41 the will is right or wrong that had been laid down by the Supreme Court.

52:46 And also there is TSL PRB versus Pendola Vijay over where the Supreme Court have

52:54 said that the license renewals operate prospectively

52:57 only that is when the license get renewed.

53:00 So prospectively only afterwards you can start doing the work

53:04 that you are doing and past unauthorized operations they

53:08 cannot be regularized by the renewal of the license

53:11 and that had been laid down by the Supreme Court.

53:14 So these are the again important cases and also there are few more cases

53:18 that are important that that that happened

53:21 in the Supreme Court in the past one year.

53:24 The one is property owners association versus state of Maharashtra.

53:28 In this nine judge bench they have unanimously

53:32 held that the article 31C that is which protects

53:35 the laws advancing the directive principles of state policy

53:39 which are given under article 39B and 39 C.

53:43 they continues to exist even after the minurva mills case.

53:48 All right.

53:48 And 8 is to1 in the ratio they held that not all the private property not

53:54 all the private property that is there it

53:56 can automatically be a material resource of the community.

54:02 Only property that meets the specific criteria that is availability,

54:05 nationalization, potential etc.

54:08 they qualifies as the material resource of the community

54:11 and thereby thereby over here the Supreme Court have

54:15 barred or it has settled the long-pending question

54:17 on the scope of the acquisition power that the state has.

54:22 The next important case is Pankage Bansil versus Union of India.

54:26 In Pankage Basel versus Union of India again very important.

54:30 It had laid down that the UAPA that is unlawful activities prevention act.

54:35 Now this is a punitive detention act.

54:39 Sorry, preventive detention act.

54:42 This is preventive detention act or you can also say

54:47 that this is an act that is linked to terrorism.

54:52 All right.

54:53 This is unlawful activities prevention act.

54:55 So Supreme Court have said that even those arrestes who had been

54:59 arrested under UAPA they must receive the grounds of arrest in in writing.

55:05 Now we know that there is the protection that is available

55:09 in the terms of or in the cont protection it was there before.

55:14 So this changes everything and here it has

55:16 said that constitutional mandate is from the pankage bans

55:20 case that the grounds of arrest in writing

55:23 applies equally to the UAPA uh arrest as well.

55:27 All right or the unlawful activities prevention act

55:29 and when it comes to article 221 rights.

55:33 So the right to be informed on the grounds of the arrest

55:36 and to consult a lawyer they are also available for the uh

55:41 the the people who have been arrested on the preventive grounds

55:44 and they are involable that had been laid down by the Supreme Court.

55:49 The language accessible to the arrested person is mandatory and also it expands

55:54 the protection of the personal liberty under

55:56 article 21 and 22 to the anti-terror law.

55:59 Again very important because it extends the rights.

56:04 The next important uh judgment is about the bail

56:07 conditions which cannot violate the right for privacy.

56:11 All right.

56:11 And what had happened was there were certain

56:13 of the bail conditions that were laid down

56:15 and over here it was asked that the accused should drop a pin on the Google map

56:21 that where he is going or so

56:23 that the police can access and this supreme court said

56:26 that this amounts to the continuous surveillance and this continuous

56:29 surveillance is basically violating the right to privacy.

56:34 All right, that is there under article 21.

56:36 So this has expanded the puta swami judgment or the right

56:39 to privacy into the bail juris prudence as well.

56:42 It checks the arbitrary bail conditions

56:45 and protects the personal liberty during the trial.

56:48 So it is said or the supreme court said that the bail conditions they

56:51 must not be freakish and must serve

56:53 the administration of justice and not punishment.

56:58 The next important case is about Madras bar association versus union of India.

57:02 This is about the tribunal reforms act and over here

57:05 the tribunals reforms act of 2021 had been struck down.

57:10 Now the constitution branch it had struck down the act and it had hold

57:15 that substantially reproduced version of the tribunal

57:18 reforms ordinance that was there in 2021.

57:21 So there was this ordinance which was or which has already been struck down.

57:25 Now what the government or the parliament did that it circumvented the complete

57:30 ordinance and it you know introduced another act for the complete process.

57:36 So over here the Supreme Court said that the parliament it cannot

57:40 circumvent the Supreme Court's constitutional ruling

57:43 by reenacting the struck down provisions.

57:46 All right.

57:46 So again this again reaffirms or affirms

57:49 the judicial review as supreme and as the basic

57:53 structure of the constitution and prevents the legislative

57:56 bypass of the supreme court rulings as well.

57:59 It reinforces that there is separation of power

58:01 and protects the judicial independence of the tribunals also.

58:07 Now the next important act that was or the case

58:10 that was there it was Ravinda Praab Shahi versus state of UP.

58:15 Now in this the Supreme Court have addressed the chronic issue

58:18 of delayed pronouncement of judgments even

58:21 after the hearings have been concluded.

58:24 So after the hearing had been concluded the the courts

58:27 they uh delay the pronouncement of the judgments

58:31 and here the Supreme Court have said

58:32 that there should be or there there should be

58:35 a established structured reporting and escalation mechanism and also

58:39 it said that the reaffirm principles are there

58:43 from the Anil Ray versus state of Bihar

58:45 which had been already laid down by the court.

58:47 So there should be a timely justice which is an inseparable

58:51 face of the article 21 and article 21 is a living

58:56 right including the right to timely education of the courts as well

59:02 or of the different uh you know uh that is there.

59:06 Now there were also various environmental uh supreme court orders related

59:10 to sand mining as well especially when it comes to chumbul.

59:14 All right.

59:14 There was a case about Chumbal as well where the Supreme Court have said that do

59:20 we need to provide or we need to uh you know execute uh uh or we need

59:25 to see that there have to be a central police force that have to be uh

59:29 stationed there and ultimately we will ourselves we

59:33 will stop the sand mining from that particular region.

59:35 Now there had been lots of cases related to sand

59:38 mining and the Supreme Court have led a comprehensive guideline

59:41 for preventing the illegal sand mining which is being done

59:45 from the river beds including the man-made water bodies which are there.

59:50 All right.

59:50 It has also extended the environmental protection

59:53 to the artificial reservoirs and ponds as well

59:56 and had directed the states to strictly enforce

59:59 the regulation and create a complete oversight mechanism.

1:00:04 Now when it comes to sand mining,

1:00:06 this is very important threat that we have right now.

1:00:09 Illegal sand mining, it is a major environmental as well as governance

1:00:12 issue because it affects the complete morphology of rivers.

1:00:16 The groundwater recharge as well and the flood patterns

1:00:20 are also changed because of the sand mining operations.

1:00:26 Now at the same time Supreme Court have also ordered

1:00:28 the Jharkharkan government to declare the Saranda forest as the wildlife

1:00:33 century so that the the biodiversity could be preserved in the region

1:00:38 and also the illegal mining can be protected over here.

1:00:42 Now when it comes to Saranda,

1:00:44 Saranda is the one of the Asia's largest sal forest that are

1:00:49 found over here and also it is a critical elephant corridor as well.

1:00:53 So again this links with the TN Governor

1:00:55 case because when it comes to the forest

1:00:58 the forest definition were provided by the court in the TNA case in which

1:01:03 it said that the forest is not limited to the office where we have forests

1:01:08 which have not been notified by the government

1:01:10 they will also be deemed to be forest.

1:01:13 Now the next one is about the medical in emergency or the golden hour.

1:01:18 Now in this case the Supreme Court have held

1:01:20 that denying any timely medical treatment during the golden hour.

1:01:24 This is the first few minutes or the first few

1:01:28 seconds which are there which are critical for saving the lives.

1:01:31 So that violates the right to life under the article

1:01:34 21 and the Supreme Court said that the the state has

1:01:37 a positive obligation to see and to ensure that the emergency

1:01:42 health care is accessible to the people and the hospitals.

1:01:46 they cannot turn away the accident victims as well.

1:01:49 Now this says that the state have a positive obligation which

1:01:52 is there under article 21 under the dietary principle of the health

1:01:56 that is article 47 that lays down that the state must regard

1:02:01 raising the level of nutrition and improving the public health as well.

1:02:05 So these are the crucial obligations which were

1:02:08 touched upon by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

1:02:11 Now the next important judgment is the KP Tamil

1:02:15 Man versus state and this is about the honor killing.

1:02:18 Now there was a honor killing in you know Tamil Nadu

1:02:22 and over here Supreme Court have delivered this landmark ruling upon

1:02:26 the honor killings and it had clarified that the evidentiary value

1:02:31 of the hostile as well as related witness is very important.

1:02:35 All right.

1:02:36 It has said that the intercast there were intercast couple which were there.

1:02:40 All right.

1:02:40 the the the the couple were Morgesan as well as Kanagi in Tamil Nadu.

1:02:45 They were murdered by the bride's family in 2003.

1:02:49 So ultimately through this uh particular judgment the Supreme Court have

1:02:52 strengthened the conviction standards for the honor killing cases in India.

1:02:56 Again this is important for honor killings.

1:03:00 The next important case is the soil Malik versus Union of India.

1:03:05 And in this case, Supreme Court have held

1:03:07 that the ICC that is internal complaints committee.

1:03:11 Now this internal complaints committee is under the POSH act.

1:03:15 POSH act is basically again very important because it

1:03:18 is prevention of sexual harassment act that is there.

1:03:21 It is for the uh various you know acts of the sexual

1:03:26 harassment that had been prevented by this in the workplace.

1:03:29 So the ICC or the internal complaint committee under

1:03:32 the prehensial of sexual harassment act that can conduct the preliminary

1:03:36 inquiry this was laid down by the Supreme Court even

1:03:40 if even if the respondent works in a different government department.

1:03:45 So ultimately it expands the scope of the workplace

1:03:48 uh sexual harassment inquiry under the POS act of 2013.

1:03:53 So again it connects with Vishaka guidelines as well.

1:03:55 You could be asked about Vishaka guidelines even uh about this.

1:04:00 All right.

1:04:00 So that would be all in this video.

1:04:02 These are the important landmark Supreme Court judgments.

1:04:04 We have discussed the historic even the current

1:04:07 judgments which had been passed by the Supreme Court.

1:04:09 Now if you are preparing for the UPSC 2027 and 28

1:04:13 and you are looking for a better optional for you.

1:04:16 So public administration provides you with that benefit.

1:04:19 It is a better public optional that you can have.

1:04:22 And ultimately when it comes to public administration,

1:04:25 I'll be taking the optional classes right from 15th of May.

1:04:28 And you can enroll into the batch by using

1:04:30 the code BRS live for the maximum discount.

1:04:34 Also, we have the UPSC uh GS foundation batch for 2027 and for 2028.

1:04:40 That is resolution P2i batches.

1:04:43 You can enroll into these batches.

1:04:44 The batches will be starting from the 7th of May.

1:04:47 And again you can enroll into these batches

1:04:49 using the code BRS live for the maximum discount.

1:04:53 So that would be all in this video.

1:04:54 Thank you everyone for being over here with me

1:04:57 along with me and going through the important

1:05:00 landmark judgments of the Supreme Court that could

1:05:02 be asked in your examination upcoming prelims 2026.

1:05:07 And they are not just important for your 2026 but also

1:05:10 if you are preparing for 2027 as well because they connect

1:05:13 the previous landmark judgments to the present uh judgments or the present

1:05:19 uh uh case decisions which had happened in the Supreme Court.

1:05:22 So that would be all.

1:05:23 Thank you very much guys for joining me over here.

1:05:25 I'll see you in the next video in the next session tomorrow.

1:05:28 So, till then, take care of yourself and bye-bye.