A seven-judge Constitution Bench, by 4:3, read the word 'his' in section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 broadly. An appeal for votes on the ground of religion, race, caste, community or language — of the candidate, his agent, the rival, or the voter — is a corrupt practice. The dissent would have confined 'his' to the candidate.
On 5 November 2024, a three-judge bench upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004, while striking down its higher-education-degree provisions as beyond State legislative competence under Entry 66 and the UGC Act.
On 9 April 2026 a Karnataka High Court division bench led by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru dismissed a PIL against the MHA's 'Vande Mataram' school-recitation advisory as premature, holding that the advisory's permissive 'may' formulation, absence of penal consequence, and lack of any actual coercive enforcement against the petitioner left no live constitutional grievance to adjudicate.
On 11 March 1994, a nine-judge Constitution Bench delivered the most consequential federalism ruling of the post-Kesavananda generation. The judgment held that the President's proclamation under Article 356 imposing President's Rule in a State is subject to judicial review; that secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution; that the dissolution of a State Legislative Assembly cannot precede Parliament's approval of the proclamation; and that a State Government that fails to act in accordance with the secular character of the Constitution can, on appropriate facts, be dismissed. A digest of the bench, the doctrinal holdings, and the architecture they leave.