The Landmark Judgement cases of 2025:

April 19, 2025
| No Comments

What is a Landmark Case?

A landmark case is a judicial decision that has lasting legal, social, or political consequences. These are not ordinary case rulings — they establish new legal principles, interpret laws or constitutional provisions, and sometimes overturn existing laws or practices.

✨ Key Features of Landmark Cases

 

Feature Description
Legal Precedent It sets a new rule or principle that must be followed in future similar cases (Doctrine of Stare Decisis).
Constitutional Importance Often involves interpretation of fundamental rights or constitutional provisions.
Public Impact Affects a large number of people or has national significance.
Judicial Activism Sometimes courts go beyond the black letter of law to protect rights or public interest.
Historical Significance These cases are milestones in the legal development of a country.

📘 Types of Landmark Cases (India)

  1. Constitutional Law Cases

    • Deal with fundamental rights, structure of government, federalism, etc.

    • Example: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala – Basic Structure Doctrine

  2. Criminal Law Cases

    • Interpret provisions of IPC, CrPC, or procedural fairness.

    • Example: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India – Due process in passport seizure

  3. Civil Law Cases

    • Property rights, contracts, torts, marriage, etc.

    • Example: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India – OBC reservation (civil service)

  4. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Cases

    • Focused on public welfare or social justice.

    • Example: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan – Workplace sexual harassment guidelines

  5. Social Reform Cases

    • Address issues like gender rights, LGBTQ+ rights, caste discrimination, etc.

    • Example: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India – Decriminalized Section 377 IPC

      📌 How to Identify if a Case is Landmark

      Ask these questions:

      1. Did it change or clarify the law?

      2. Did it have wide social/political/legal impact?

      3. Did it involve constitutional/fundamental rights?

      4. Is it cited frequently in courts/legal literature?

      5. Did it lead to new legislation or policy change?

      If yes — it’s most likely a landmark judgment.

    • THE LIST OF LANDMARK JUDGEMENT CASES OF 2025:

1.State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025)

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai

Facts:
The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed multiple bills that were pending with the Governor for an unusually long time. The Governor neither granted assent nor returned the bills, prompting the State Government to approach the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Can the Governor indefinitely withhold assent to bills?

  • Can the Governor send a bill to the President after the Assembly re-passes it?

Decision:
The Supreme Court held:

  • The Governor cannot delay decision-making on bills indefinitely.

  • Once a bill is re-passed by the legislature, the Governor must grant assent and cannot reserve it again for Presidential consideration.

  • Courts can exercise judicial review if the Governor violates constitutional provisions under Articles 200 and 201.

Significance:
This ruling strengthens the federal structure, ensuring Governors act within constitutional limits and don’t become political roadblocks.

2. Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025)

Facts:
An elderly woman, Urmila Dixit, transferred property to her son and his wife. Later, she alleged mistreatment and demanded the return of her property under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Issue:
Can elderly parents reclaim transferred property if not cared for?

Decision:
Yes. The Court ruled that:

  • Any property transfer contingent upon the promise of care can be revoked if that care is not provided.

  • The 2007 Act empowers tribunals to cancel such transfers.

Significance:
Reinforces legal protections for senior citizens against neglect and misuse of familial relationships for property gain.

3. Domicile-Based Reservation in PG Medical Courses (Chandigarh Quota Case, 2025)

Facts:
The Union Territory of Chandigarh introduced a 100% domicile reservation for PG medical courses.

Issue:
Is domicile-based reservation valid in a Union Territory?

Decision:
The Supreme Court held this violated Article 14 (Right to Equality), as:

  • Chandigarh doesn’t have a separate legislative power to define domicile.

  • 100% reservation blocks equal opportunity for non-domiciled candidates.

Significance:
This case limits arbitrary reservation policies and protects merit-based access in educational institutions.

4. Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 – Under Judicial Scrutiny

Facts:
The amended Act gave the Central Waqf Council more power over state waqf boards and their properties.

Issue:
Does this violate the rights of religious denominations under Article 26?

Current Status:
Pending. The Court is reviewing:

  • Whether the Act infringes on the autonomy of religious institutions.

  • The validity of central interference in state-managed religious property.

Significance:
This case could redefine the balance between religious freedom and government oversight.

5. Anti-Conversion Law Challenges

Facts:
Several states passed laws requiring individuals to take permission before converting for marriage (like the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020).

Issue:
Do such laws violate:

  • Article 25 (freedom of religion)?

  • Article 21 (personal liberty)?

Arguments:
Petitioners argue that:

  • The laws infringe on individual autonomy and privacy.

  • They promote policing of interfaith marriages.

Current Status:
Constitution Bench hearings are ongoing.

Significance:
Will determine limits of state power in religious and personal matters.

6. Appointment of Election Commissioners Act, 2023 – Under Review (2025)

Background:
The 2023 Act changed the composition of the committee selecting Election Commissioners. It replaced the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Union Cabinet Minister.

Issue:
Does this dilute the independence of the Election Commission?

Relevance:
Follows the 2023 Anoop Baranwal judgment that emphasized neutral appointments to the Election Commission.

Current Status:
Under challenge in the Supreme Court.

Significance:
This case will determine the integrity of electoral democracy in India.

7. Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI (Content Takedown Challenge)

Facts:
A Delhi court ordered Wikipedia to remove content from a page that allegedly defamed Indian news agency ANI.

Issue:
Can courts force global platforms to remove public-edited content?

Arguments by Wikimedia:

  • The order affects freedom of speech.

  • Wikipedia content is community-driven, not controlled by the Foundation.

Significance:
A major test of online freedom, intermediary liability, and censorship boundaries in India.

8. Ranveer Allahabadia (BeerBiceps) – Obscenity Charges

Facts:
Popular podcaster Ranveer Allahabadia made controversial sexual comments in a YouTube podcast episode, triggering public outrage and criminal cases under IPC obscenity laws.

Court’s View:

  • He may continue podcasting but must maintain “morality and decency” standards.

  • The platform was reminded of its public responsibility.

Significance:
Raises questions about online creators’ liability, free expression, and community standards in digital media.

9. Crypto Regulation Case (April 15, 2025)

Facts:
A crypto entrepreneur in custody challenged his arrest, claiming:

  • India lacks clear crypto laws.

  • His arrest violates natural justice and due process.

Issues:

  • Is it constitutional to criminalize activity in an unregulated space?

  • Should there be a comprehensive crypto framework?

Current Status:
Pending. Could push for parliamentary action or regulatory clarity.

Significance:
Could define the future of cryptocurrency regulation in India.

judiciary, legal knowledge
| Tags: , , , , ,