Legal Briefs

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 Petitioner: Kesavananda Bharati (Head of Edneer Mutt, a Hindu religious institution in Kerala) Respondent: State of Kerala Facts of the Case: Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, challenged the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 as amended in 1969, which aimed to place restrictions on land holdings and aimed to distribute land for equitable access. Bharati filed the petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, contending that his rights to manage the property of the religious institution were infringed by the Act. This case, however, quickly escalated into a constitutional matter because it involved not only land reforms but also fundamental questions about the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The case was filed at a time when there was intense debate over whether Parliament had the power to amend fundamental rights and alter the basic structure of the Constitution. The petitioner contend...

Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192 Appellant: Samsher Singh Respondent: State of Punjab Facts of the Case: In Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, the appellant, Samsher Singh, was a probationary sub-judge who was discharged from service during the period of his probation. He challenged his dismissal on the grounds that it violated Article 311 of the Constitution of India, which provides protection to civil servants from arbitrary dismissal. Singh contended that his termination was a form of punishment and that he was entitled to the constitutional safeguards outlined in Article 311, which required a proper inquiry before dismissal. The State of Punjab, on the other hand, argued that Samsher Singh was a probationary officer, and his discharge was not by way of punishment but because his services were found unsatisfactory during the probation period. According to the state, there was no requirement for a formal inquiry under Article 311 because the dismissal was not punit...

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299 Appellant: Indira Nehru Gandhi (Prime Minister of India) Respondent: Raj Narain Facts of the Case: This case arose from the 1971 general elections in India, where Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, contested and won the Rae Bareli constituency. Raj Narain, her rival candidate, challenged her election in the Allahabad High Court, alleging that she engaged in corrupt electoral practices under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Raj Narain claimed that Indira Gandhi used government machinery and resources, including government officials, for her election campaign, thus violating electoral laws. On June 12, 1975, the Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of Raj Narain, declaring Indira Gandhi's election null and void. The court found her guilty of misusing her office for electoral gain, holding that she had improperly employed government officials in her campaign. This decision disqualified Indira Gandhi...

Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515 Petitioner: Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd.   Respondent: Union of India (UOI) Facts of the Case: The dispute in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India arose from a lease agreement between Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., a prominent media house, and the Union of India (UOI). The petitioner, Express Newspapers, had leased land from the government in 1958 to construct a building for its newspaper offices. Over the years, the company expanded its building on the leased land, and this resulted in allegations from the government that it had violated the terms of the lease agreement. The Government of India sought to reclaim the land, stating that the construction was not authorized and that Express Newspapers had exceeded the permissible land use. Consequently, the government issued notices to the company, intending to take over the property. Express Newspapers challenged the notices, asserting that the government...