Jurisence
Home AI Legal Hub Advocacy Lab Study Skills About Podcast Academy soon Opportunities soon

LANDMARK CASE

Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 (Keshav Singh)

AIR 1965 SC 745 · Supreme Court of India · Constitutional law

At a glance

  • Citation: AIR 1965 SC 745
  • Court: Supreme Court of India
  • Area of law: Constitutional law
  • In one line: Yes. Courts can review detention, and privileges are subject to fundamental rights.

1 Facts

The UP Assembly committed a man for contempt, and the High Court granted bail, leading to a clash.

2 Issue

Can courts review legislative privilege actions?

3 What the court decided

Yes. Courts can review detention, and privileges are subject to fundamental rights.

4 Why it matters

Key case on legislature and judiciary.

5 Think about it

Why are privileges not absolute?

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.

How to analyse a judgmentHow to cite this case

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

← Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of IndiaSsangyong Engineering v. NHAI →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.

Jurisence

The Algorithm for Next-Gen Legal Minds

Explore

Home AI Legal Hub Advocacy Lab Study Materials Word of the Day Case of the Day Weekly Quiz My Jurisence Podcast Skill Roadmaps About

Legal

Privacy Policy Terms of Service Disclaimer

Connect

Contact Instagram Threads Facebook LinkedIn

© Jurisence. All rights reserved.

Educational content only — not legal advice.