Judiciary Mapping

*A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)* – Personal liberty under Article 21. *Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)* – Basic Structure Doctrine. *I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)* – Amendability of Fundamental Rights. *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)* – Expanded the scope of Article 21. *S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)* – Federalism and misuse of Article 356. *Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)* – Reservations and the Mandal Commission. *K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)* – Right to Privacy. *Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)* – Decriminalization of homosexuality. *Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)* – Triple Talaq invalid. *Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)* – Reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine

📘 *LIST OF DOCTRINES - THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA* 1. *Ejusdem Generis* – Means of the same kind. *(Article 12)* 2. *Ab Initio* – Means for the very beginning. *(Article 13)* 3. *Doctrine of Judicial Review* – A law is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or High Court if it contravenes any of the Fundamental Rights. *(Articles 13, 32, 226)* 4. *Doctrine of Eclipse* – The law which contravenes Fundamental Rights is not void ab initio; it remains in a morbid condition and unenforceable. It is not totally wiped out from the statute book. *(Article 13)* 5. *Doctrine of Severability* – The whole law is not void under Article 13; only that portion which contravenes Fundamental Rights is void, and the rest remains operative. *(Article 13)* 6. *Doctrine of Rule of Law* – It means supremacy of law and absence of arbitrary power. *(Article 14)* 7. *Principle of Reasonable Classification* – Equals cannot be treated unequally and unequals cannot be treated equally. *(Article 14)* 8. *Audi Alteram Partem* – Means no one should be condemned unheard. *(Articles 14, 21, 22)* 9. *Wednesbury Principle* – Used to adjudge the discretion provided to the executive under the statute. *(Article 14)* 10. *Lex Non a Rege Est Violanda* – Means the law must not be violated even by the king. *(Article 14)* 11. *Pari Passu* – Means on equal footing. *(Article 14)* 12. *Rex Quod Injustum Est Facere Non Potest* – Means the king cannot do what is unjust. *(Article 14)* 13. *Principle of Proportionality of Restrictions* – Restrictions should not be arbitrary or beyond what is required for achieving the object. *(Article 19)* 14. *Ex Post Facto* – A law which imposes penalty retrospectively. *(Article 20)* 15. *Double Jeopardy* – No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. *(Article 20)* 16. *Nemo Debet Bis Vexari Pro Una et Eadem Causa* – Means a man shall not be vexed twice for one and the same cause. *(Article 20)* 17. *Nemobis Punitur… Read in full →

*State of WB V. Jai Hind Pvt Ltd (2026 SC)* Facts: 1. S.57A of the WBEA Act, 1953 provides that, “The State government may by order invest any authority with all the powers of a civil court under CPC”. 2. The State of WB, in exercise of its power u/S.57A vested the Revenue Authorities with all the powers of a civil court under CPC. 3. The issue before the SC is: whether the Revenue Authorities can Review its own orders? SC held that: 1. The power of review is *not an inherent power* of the Court. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The quasijudicial authorities can exercise only those powers which are expressly conferred upon them by the statute. Hence, the power of review, which is not inherent, must be conferred upon the quasi-judicial authority by means of a *specific provision in the statute*. 2. Unless a specific statutory provision invests the power of Review in the Revenue Authorities, these authorities could not have possessed the power or authority to review an earlier order. The omnibus expression used i.e. “all the powers of the Civil Court”, does not amount to conferment of power of review as well to these authorities. 3. At a more fundamental level, in the absence of an express legislative mandate, allowing a Revenue Officer to review its own concluded quasi-judicial order would trench upon the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, which constitutes part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Though vested with limited adjudicatory functions, authorities under the WBEA Act, 1953, remain essentially members of the executive branch and are neither part of the judicial organ nor equipped with the institutional safeguards that attend judicial office, such as independence from executive control.