An institution exists in India so powerful, it could rewrite a nation’s destiny – often in silence, but always with profound impact. For 75 years, the Supreme Court of India has been that unseen, unshakeable force at the very heart of our Republic. This is The Supreme Court’s Secret History – how its most pivotal judgments, from cautious beginnings to bold expansions of liberty, haven’t just interpreted the Indian Constitution, but have fundamentally reshaped the very fabric of India and the daily lives of its citizens. This journey highlights the Indian legal landscape from 1950-2025.
The Foundational Era: A Cautious Beginning (1950s-1960s)
When the Republic of India was born in 1950, it was built on the promise of a new Constitution—a sacred text overflowing with the ideals of liberty, equality, and justice. The Supreme Court was created to be its ultimate guardian and interpreter. In its early years, however, the Court stepped onto the national stage with caution, choosing a path of literal, almost rigid interpretation.
This careful approach was cast in stone in the 1950 case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras. The petitioner, a detained communist leader, claimed his fundamental right to life and liberty had been violated. In a verdict that would echo for decades, the Supreme Court took a narrow view. It ruled that as long as a “procedure established by law” was followed, personal liberty could be curtailed. This meant the Court would not question the fairness or justice of the law itself, only if the government had checked the right boxes. This judgment powerfully deferred to Parliament’s legislative authority, effectively limiting the protective shield of fundamental rights.
Yet, even in this cautious era, sparks of judicial fire appeared. That same year, in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, the Court championed a free press, declaring that freedom of speech was the very foundation of democracy. This case set the stage for a defining tension in India’s story: the tug-of-war between the power of Parliament and the Court’s duty as the guardian of citizens’ rights. The first battle lines were drawn in cases like Shankari Prasad v. Union of India in 1951, where the Court upheld Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights—a decision that lit the fuse for one of the greatest constitutional showdowns in Indian history.
The Unshakeable Core: The Basic Structure Doctrine (1973)
For the next two decades, a quiet constitutional war simmered between Parliament and the Judiciary. Determined to push its socialist agenda, Parliament passed amendment after amendment, chipping away at fundamental rights, particularly the right to property. The Supreme Court, sensing a shift in the balance of power, began to push back. This simmering conflict finally erupted in 1973, in a legal battle that would permanently redraw the lines of power in India: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.
On the surface, the case was about a religious monastery’s property rights. But it quickly morphed into an epic struggle over the soul of the Indian Constitution. For an unprecedented 68 days, the largest bench ever assembled—13 judges—weighed a single, momentous question: Is Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution absolute? Could it rewrite, or even erase, the fundamental rights of the people?
The verdict was a masterstroke of judicial wisdom. The Court declared that while Parliament could indeed amend the Constitution, it could not touch its “basic structure.” This “Basic Structure Doctrine” is the Constitution’s unshakeable core—the pillars of democracy, secularism, federalism, and fundamental rights. This doctrine was a brilliant judicial innovation, not written in the Constitution’s text, but drawn from its very spirit. With this single landmark judgment, the Supreme Court positioned itself as the final protector of the Constitution, an eternal safeguard against any branch of government that dared to overstep.
A Revolution in Interpretation: The Expansion of Life and Liberty (1970s-1980s)
If Kesavananda Bharati built the fortress walls to protect the Constitution, the Maneka Gandhi case in 1978 threw open the gates, unleashing a revolution in individual liberty. When Maneka Gandhi’s passport was seized by the government without explanation, her challenge forced the Supreme Court to confront its own 28-year-old ghost from the A.K. Gopalan case.
The Court’s shift was seismic. In a revolutionary reinterpretation of Article 21—the right to life and personal liberty—the judges shattered their old reasoning. They declared that the “procedure established by law” could no longer be any procedure. It had to be “just, fair, and reasonable.”
The impact was profound. This single ruling breathed new life into Article 21, transforming it from a simple shield against illegal detention into a wellspring of human rights. The Court reasoned that the “right to life” was not about mere animal existence; it was the right to live with human dignity. From this expansive idea, a universe of new rights was born, recognized by the judiciary even without being explicitly written in the Constitution. These include the right to travel, the right to a clean environment, the right to education, and the right to a livelihood. This bold stance was cemented in Minerva Mills v. Union of India in 1980, where the court not only defended the basic structure doctrine but declared that the power of judicial review was itself part of that untouchable core. This marked a period of judicial activism in India.
The Conscience of the Nation: The Era of Social Justice (1980s-1990s)
Armed with an empowered Article 21 and the powerful tool of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court in the 80s and 90s transformed into the nation’s conscience in action. It began to intervene directly on behalf of the poor, the marginalized, and the forgotten.
A defining moment was the 1985 Shah Bano Begum case. Shah Bano, a 62-year-old divorced Muslim woman, was denied maintenance by her ex-husband. The Supreme Court upheld her right to alimony under India’s secular laws, igniting a fierce national debate on gender justice, secularism, and religious personal laws.
The Court’s focus on gender equality intensified. In 1997, confronting the scourge of sexual harassment at work in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, the Court saw a gaping hole in the law. It boldly stepped into this legal vacuum, crafting the landmark Vishaka Guidelines from scratch. These directives made employers responsible for ensuring a safe workplace for women, a powerful instance of the judiciary legislating to protect the fundamental right to live with dignity.
The Court also waded into the complex waters of affirmative action. In the 1992 Indra Sawhney case, it upheld reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs. Simultaneously, it introduced the “creamy layer” concept, a mechanism to exclude the most privileged members of those classes, attempting to strike a delicate balance between social equity and individual merit.
New Rights for a New India (2000s-2010s)
As India hurtled into the 21st century, the Supreme Court didn’t just keep pace; it began to chart the course, recognizing entirely new rights for a new India. This era saw the Court go beyond merely protecting rights to actively creating them, solidifying its role in Indian constitutional development.
In 2017, the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy judgment became a watershed moment. The Court declared the Right to Privacy a fundamental right, an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. This decision sent shockwaves through the nation, shaping everything from the Aadhaar biometric program to data protection laws.
This focus on individual dignity drove another transformative judgment in 2018. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Court corrected a deep historical injustice by decriminalizing consensual same-sex relations. It struck down parts of Section 377, a colonial-era law, in a powerful affirmation of the rights to equality, dignity, and privacy for all LGBTQ+ Indians.
Gender justice saw another monumental victory in 2017 with the Shayara Bano case. Here, the Court declared the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) unconstitutional, finding it arbitrary, discriminatory, and a violation of the fundamental rights of Muslim women.
The Frontier of Rights: The 2020s and Beyond
The journey is far from over. The last five years have pushed the very frontiers of fundamental rights, proving the Court’s work is a living, breathing process. The Court has ventured into new territory, linking constitutional rights to the most urgent challenges of our time.
In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), it recognized the “right to die with dignity” as an element of the right to life, permitting passive euthanasia through living wills. The Court continued to sculpt the narrative of affirmative action, upholding the 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in the Janhit Abhiyan case of 2022.
More recently, in a landmark 2024 ruling, the Court declared that the “right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change” is a distinct fundamental right, flowing from the right to life and equality. That same year, it reinforced democratic integrity by striking down the anonymous Electoral Bonds scheme as a violation of the citizen’s fundamental right to information. As we look to 2025 and beyond, the Supreme Court is poised to tackle the next wave of challenges, constantly redrawing the sacred line between the state and its citizens in the evolving Indian Legal Landscape.
Conclusion
From guarding nascent liberties to pioneering new human rights, the Supreme Court’s 75-year journey is a testament to judicial evolution. It’s transformed from a mere interpreter of law into the ultimate guardian of our Constitution and the fiercest protector of your fundamental rights. Every landmark judgment, from Kesavananda Bharati to the Right to Privacy, hasn’t just been a legal decision; it’s been a defining moment for over a billion lives, truly rewriting India’s destiny.