Talk:List of landmark court decisions in India

India High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indian Law Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indian Law, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Indian Law. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indian LawWikipedia:WikiProject Indian LawTemplate:WikiProject Indian LawIndian Law articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Landmark or not[edit]

I have moved most of the landmark cases out of the List section to the appropriate sections but the cases which remain don't readily fit under the name Landmark Judgement.
Removing them from the page and adding them here for later reference in case one might wish to add them again.

2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India
Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar
Campa Cola Compound Case
DLF land grab case
Garhi Sampla Uddar Gagan land case
Gurugram Rajiv Gandhi Trust land grab case
Hadiya case
Haryana Forestry case
K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra
M/S R.M.D.C (Mysore) v. State of Mysore
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India
Maradu apartments demolition order
Novartis v. Union of India & Others
Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment & Forest
Rajbala v. State of Haryana
Sonepat-Kharkhoda IMT land case

>>> Extorc.talk 08:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring reverted[edit]

@Ftrebien, I have reverted your changes as you failed to discuss the changes. The conversion of external links to references is fine but you are also removing the nesting which I believe is useful. The color scheme can be mentioned in a legend. That nesting and color scheme clearly makes it useful for the reader to understand what is the current status of this ruling. >>> Extorc.talk 06:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can boldly edit articles to fix problems without having to ask for permission. I re-applied some of the corrections that are supported by conventions and the manual of style. I still find the table structure a little strange, not only its nested structure, but also the many unnecessary line breaks. A table with paragraph long texts might be better turned into prose, perhaps as lists (whose nesting is more readable), like in List of landmark court decisions in the United States, for example. Many people read Wikipedia on mobile devices, and these types of large tables are difficult to read on mobile devices requiring a lot of horizontal scrolling (especially when the cells with tons of text cause other cells to stretch and remain mostly empty), while prose is properly laid out, so this type of table should be reserved only for cases where they are very necessary. For example, the smallest and the largest table entries could look like this if the tables were reworked as lists and prose:

M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [1996] INSC 1608 Established that the Public trust doctrine applied in India.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [2018] INSC 746: Decriminalisation of acts of Oral sex and Anal sex which effectively decriminalised Homosexual sex. Overruled Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation [2013] INSC 1096, which upheld and reinstated the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalising Anal sex, and Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [2009] INSC 2450, on the decriminalization of homosexual acts involving consenting adults throughout India.

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]