[8][9] Article 142 stated that any decree or order passed by the Supreme Court to do complete justice was enforceable throughout the territory of India.
[1][3][11][12] An eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court overruled the previous ruling on judicial review of the Constitutional Amendments in Golaknath v. State Of Punjab (1967).
[1][3][13] In response to the Golaknath v. State Of Punjab (1967) ruling, the Parliament passed amendments restricting the power of judicial review.
[1][3][15] A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court affirmed and further clarified the Basic Structure Doctrine in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975).
[1][3][16][17] In response to the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Parliament passed the Forty-second Amendment to [1][3][14] A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court applied and clarified the Basic Structure Doctrine in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1977).
While ruling this case, the Bench explicitly held that judicial Review is an element of the Constitution protected by the Basic Structure Doctrine.
In doing so, the Bench established the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling, which dictates that a decision in a particular case would have an operation in the future and will not carry any retrospective effect on the past judgments.
[3][20] When the constitutionality of the Tenth Schedule was challenged in Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu (1992), a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the power of the Speaker to decide on questions of disqualification but voided the provision excluding the decision from judicial review.
The Bench held that if a law excluded the jurisdiction of the High Court without setting up an alternative arrangement for judicial review, it would be violation of the basic structure and hence outside the constituent power of the Parliament.
This method differs from French Model, where judicial review is required before the law takes effect and in the abstract, without an actual case or controversy.
[26]Chief Justice S H Kapadia urged the judiciary to maintain self-restraint, respect the separation of power and not overtake the legislative function in the fifth M C Setalvad Memorial Lecture on Judicial Ethics at New Delhi on 16 April 2011.
[3][28] A six-judge Bench of the Supreme Court implied that various Fundamental Rights in different Articles were mutually exclusive in the verdict of A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950).
While ruling in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty except for procedure established by law.
[31] While deciding the Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978), a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the despite the lack of the Due Process Clause in the Constitution of India same consequence ensued after the decisions in R.C.
"[33] A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court relying on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) and Bachan Singh v. State Of Punjab (1980) held that substantive due process is now to be applied to the Fundamental Right to life and liberty in Mohd Arif v. The Registrar (2014).