The crux of Kesavanand Bharati & Golaknath etc. cases...
Here goes the brief list (case name, year and what did the Supreme court ruled in that case and how parliament reacted to it?)
Shankari Prasad /1951SC said: yes Government can aquire private property for public causeyes parliament can amend fundamental rights
Golaknath v Punjab 1967Supreme court reverts from previous judgment- now Supreme court says
To counter this SC judgement, Parliament passes 24th amendment in '71 sayingyes parliament can amend or take away any Fund.right
Keshvanand Bharti vs Keral /73Now again SC changes its position.SC says : yes, parliament can amended fundamental rights but it cannot change the BASIC structure of the Constitution.*for explanation of basic structure, refer to Laxmikanth's Polity book*parliament again makes 42nd amendment to counter this- with following two provisions.1. Constitutional amendment cannot be challenged in courts2. Parliament can amend anything and everything of the Constitution , even if it is against the fundamental rights.
Minerawa Mills /80SC rejects above 42nd amendment, because it violated the basic structure of Constitution.There are some other important cases too: (list is not exhaustive)
Bommai SC sets guidelines about how and when to impose # 356 (President's rule)Union Government cannot impose President's rule on any state, according to its whims and fancies
.Indira Sawhney Creamy layer in OBC
Vishakha SC set the anti-sexual harassment guidelines