1. Right to Privacy



2. Striking down of draconian sections of the Information Technology Act in favour of individual rights

READ MORE: Supreme Court strikes down Section 66A of IT Act which allowed arrests for objectionable content online

3. Passive euthanasia

4. The right of Indian citizens to hoist the tricolour

5. Official recognition to transgenders as the third gender

6. Ban on the use of red beacon lights by most VIPs



7. Disqualification of convicted MPs and MLAs

8. Ban on Diwali firecrackers in Delhi



9. Reform of BCCI through court-appointed Lodha Committee

READ MORE: Timeline of BCCI v Lodha Panel

10. Guidelines on road safety

On August 24, 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Right to Privacy is an integral part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution. The landmark judgment ensured that the Right to Privacy is now intrinsic to the entire fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution.The verdict came in response to a bunch of petitions, led by retired HC judge KS Puttaswamy, which in 2012 had challenged the UPA government's decision to introduce biometric data-enabled Aadhaar ID for citizens.On March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court declared Section 66A of Information Technology Act as unconstitutional and struck it down.The court said such a law, which was often misused by police in various states to arrest innocent persons for posting critical comments about social and political issues and leaders on social networking sites, hit at the root of liberty and freedom of expression, the two cardinal pillars of democracy.The petitioners, including NGOs, civil rights groups and a law student, had argued that Section 66A violated citizens' fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The first petition was however filed by a law student Shreya Singhal.On March 9, 2018, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia, stating that human beings have the right to die with dignity. However, the court set out strict guidelines that will govern when it is permitted.In its verdict, the court also allowed individuals to draft living wills specifying that they not be put on life support if they slip into an incurable coma in the future. The apex court's order came on a plea by the NGO 'Common Cause'.On January 23, 2004, a bench headed by Chief Justice VN Khare declared that hoisting the tricolour is a fundamental right that the government cannot legislate away.The court, which was ruling in a petition filed by businessman Navin Jindal. said that under Article 19(1)A of the Constitution, citizens had the fundamental right to fly the national flag on their premises around the year, provided the premises do not undermine the dignity of the tricolour. Prior to this judgment, the right to fly the national flag was strictly controlled by the state.On April 15, 2014, the Supreme Court created the "third gender" status for hijras or transgender. Before this, they were forced to write male or female before their names. In its verdict, the court instructed the Centre to treat transgender as socially and economically backwards.The SC said the absence of law recognizing hijras as the third gender could not be continued as a ground to discriminate them in availing equal opportunities in education and employment.The apex court passed the order on a PIL filed by National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) urging the court to give separate identity to transgender by recognising them as the third category of gender.On December 10, 2013, a Supreme Court bench led by Justices GS Singhvi and C Nagappan said that vehicles used by MPs, MLAs, ‘sarpanchs’ and their like can no longer sport a red beacon or any beacon for that matter.The court restricted the “red beacon with flasher” to vehicles of a small band of “high dignitaries” holding constitutional posts, including President, prime minister and Chief Justice of India, and, said even they could use this facility only while on official duty. It said the list of high dignitaries, as enumerated under Rule 108(1) of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, must be strictly followed and asked the authorities, especially police, to crack down fearlessly on those misusing it.On July 10, 2013, the Supreme Court had struck down a provision in the electoral law that allowed convicted MPs and MLAs to continue in their office on the pendency of appeal in higher courts against their conviction for criminal offences.The court scrapped the provision in the Representation of the People Act that offered convicted politicians a three-month window to appeal convictions and keep their seat while their appeals are pending.The ruling came on three public interest litigations (two by lawyer Lily Thomas and one SN Shukla and another by non-governmental organisation Lok Prahari).On October 9, 2017, the Supreme Court banned the sale of fireworks days ahead of Diwali on environmental grounds in view of severe pollution.While the SC had issued a similar ban in the NCR region in 2016 as well, it didn't have the opportunity to observe the impact on pollution levels, it said. Therefore it also ordered that a relevant agency compute the impact of a noise-and smoke-free festival this year.On January 30, 2017, the Supreme Court nominated a four-member panel Committee of Administrators, consisting of Vinod Rai, Ramachandra Guha, Vikaram Limaye and Diana Edulji, to look after the administration of BCCI to implement the reforms suggested by Lodha Committee. While this committee still has its work cut out for it, this is the first systematic attempt at reform of Indian cricket's apex body which so far had operated with opaque structures and little public accountability.On November 30, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a slew of directions on road safety and asked all states and the union territories (UTs) to set up a trauma centre in each district of the country and make safety norms part of school curriculum.A bench headed by Justice M B Lokur also asked the states, which have not formulated the Road Safety Policy, to frame it by January 31 next year and implement it "with all due earnestness and seriousness".In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution The petition as filed by Dr S Rajaseekaran, an orthopaedic surgeon, a public-spirited citizen and President of the Indian Orthopaedic Association, who prayed for enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate treatment of accident victims.