LANDMARK CASE
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India
(1970) 1 SCC 248 · Supreme Court of India · Constitutional law
At a glance
- Citation: (1970) 1 SCC 248
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Area of law: Constitutional law
- In one line: The nationalisation law was struck down. The Court held fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive, and looked at the effect on rights.
1 Facts
A shareholder challenged the nationalisation of fourteen banks and the compensation offered.
2 Issue
Must laws affecting property and fundamental rights be tested only by the right directly targeted?
3 What the court decided
The nationalisation law was struck down. The Court held fundamental rights are not mutually exclusive, and looked at the effect on rights.
4 Why it matters
It rejected Gopalan's narrow approach and paved the way for Maneka Gandhi.
5 Think about it
What is the 'effect test' and why does it matter?
6 Analyse it yourself
Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.
7 More cases on Constitutional law
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
- ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521
- Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335
- Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722
- Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz
← Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar PradeshRylands v. Fletcher →
A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.