Black Robe Maven

23/08/2026

Can reservation in promotion continue without constitutional limits?

In Jarnail Singh & Others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others (2018), the Supreme Court refined the constitutional framework governing reservation in promotion for SCs and STs.

The five Judge Constitution Bench held:

1. No need to prove SC/ST backwardness afresh
The State need not collect quantifiable data to establish the backwardness of SCs and STs.

2. Inadequate representation must be shown
The State must collect quantifiable data demonstrating inadequate representation before granting reservation in promotion.

3. The data must be cadre-specific
Generic statistics are insufficient. Representation must be assessed in the relevant cadre.

4. Creamy layer principle applies
Socially advanced members of SC/ST communities can be excluded from reservation benefits in promotion.

5. Nagaraj survives, but is modified
The Court retained the framework of M. Nagaraj (2006) while removing the requirement to prove SC/ST backwardness.

The constitutional balance is the heart of the judgment:

Reservation advances substantive equality.
Constitutional limits protect equality of opportunity.

One-line memory formula

Nagaraj set the conditions. Jarnail Singh removed the need to prove SC/ST backwardness and applied the creamy layer principle to promotion reservations.

Leading Cases Series | No. 49

Know the Law. Understand the Constitution. Protect Rights.

Article16_4A Article14 SCSTReservation ConstitutionalLaw Equality SubstantiveEquality IndianConstitution SupremeCourt LegalEducation LeadingCasesSeries ConstitutionAtTheCore RuleOfLaw AmodKrBidhuri

23/08/2026

20/08/2026

Love is not a crime. Identity is not a crime. Dignity is not a privilege.

In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court unanimously held that consensual same-sex relations between adults in private cannot be criminalised.

The judgment reaffirmed:

• Article 14: Equality protects sexual minorities.

• Article 15: Constitutional protection extends against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

• Article 19: Individual expression and identity deserve constitutional protection.

• Article 21: Privacy, dignity and personal autonomy are fundamental rights.

• Constitutional morality: Fundamental Rights cannot be sacrificed to majoritarian or social morality.

The Court also rejected the reasoning in Suresh Koushal (2013) and reaffirmed that the Constitution protects the individual, particularly when social majorities may seek to deny equal citizenship to minorities.

The most powerful lesson from Navtej Singh Johar is simple:

The Constitution does not ask whether society approves of you. It asks whether your rights are protected.

Leading Cases Series | No. 47

Know the Law. Understand the Constitution. Protect Rights

05/08/2026

Can tradition take away your constitutional right to choose whom you marry?

The Supreme Court’s answer in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) was a firm No.

The Court held that every consenting adult has the Fundamental Right to choose a life partner, and no family, caste, community or Khap Panchayat can interfere with that choice.

Key Takeaways:

• The right to choose a spouse is protected under Articles 19 and 21.

• Honour killings and honour-based violence violate Articles 14, 19 and 21.

• Constitutional morality prevails over social or community morality.

• Khap Panchayats have no legal authority to interfere with lawful marriages.

• The State has a constitutional duty to protect threatened couples and prevent honour crimes.

This judgment reaffirmed a powerful constitutional truth:

Honour belongs to the Constitution, not to violence committed in its name. Individual dignity and liberty will always prevail over social prejudice.

Leading Cases Series | No. 46

Know the Law. Understand the Constitution. Protect Rights.

Article19 Article14 FundamentalRights HumanDignity RuleOfLaw IndianConstitution SupremeCourt LegalEducation LeadingCasesSeries ConstitutionAtTheCore AmodKrBidhuri

04/08/2026

Does the Constitution protect dignity until the very last breath?

In Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court answered with a resounding Yes.

The Court held that Article 21 protects not only the right to live with dignity but also the right to die with dignity.

This landmark judgment recognised:

• Passive euthanasia as constitutionally permissible under strict safeguards.

• Living Wills (Advance Medical Directives) as legally valid.

• Patient autonomy and informed consent as constitutional values.

• Human dignity continues throughout the natural process of dying.

• Medical decisions at the end of life must balance compassion with legal safeguards.

The judgment did not legalise active euthanasia. Instead, it recognised that allowing a terminally ill patient to die naturally, in carefully regulated circumstances, respects both constitutional liberty and human dignity.

The Constitution protects life. It also protects the dignity with which life ends.

Leading Cases Series | No. 44

Know the Law. Understand the Constitution. Protect Rights.

MedicalLaw ConstitutionalLaw HumanDignity SupremeCourt IndianConstitution FundamentalRights RuleOfLaw LegalEducation ConstitutionAtTheCore LeadingCasesSeries AmodKrBidhuri

02/08/2026

https://www.instagram.com/p/DbicJfntYGl/?igsh=cmV5NDJmY3J2cWs2

01/08/2026

Can tradition override the Constitution?

In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court answered with a clear constitutional principle: No.

By a 3:2 majority, the Court declared Instant Triple Talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat) unconstitutional, holding that a practice which arbitrarily ends a marriage violates the guarantees of equality, dignity and justice under the Constitution.

Key Takeaways:

• Instant Triple Talaq is unconstitutional.

• Article 14 prohibits manifest arbitrariness.

• Religious freedom under Article 25 is subject to Fundamental Rights.

• Women’s dignity and equality are constitutional guarantees.

• Constitutional morality prevails over discriminatory practices.

This judgment was more than a decision on personal law. It reaffirmed that the Constitution remains the supreme protector of every citizen’s rights.

Leading Cases Series | No. 42

Know the Law. Understand the Constitution. Protect Rights.

Article25 GenderJustice FundamentalRights SupremeCourt LegalEducation RuleOfLaw ConstitutionAtTheCore LeadingCasesSeries AmodKrBidhuri