Landmark Supreme Court Judgments Every CLAT Aspirant Must Know 2027

Bench

6-Judge Bench

Petitioner

A.K. Gopalan (Communist Leader)

Issue

Validity of detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950; challenged as violating Articles 19, 21, and 22

Key Holding 1

Fundamental Rights operate in separate, watertight compartments (silos) — no interrelationship between Arts. 19, 21, 22

Key Holding 2

"Procedure established by law" (Art. 21) = any procedure enacted by a validly passed statute, regardless of fairness/reasonableness

Approach

Narrow, literal, compartmentalized interpretation of Fundamental Rights

Rejected Argument

That Art. 21 procedure must also be "fair, just and reasonable" (rejected — that came later)

Duration of Precedent

Held the field for ~28 years

Overruled By

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) — established interconnection of Arts. 14, 19, 21 & "fair, just, reasonable procedure"

Significance for CLAT

Classic contrast case with Maneka Gandhi — tests evolution of Art. 21 interpretation

Bench

11-Judge Bench (Narrow Majority, 6:5)

Issue

Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights (Part III) under Article 368?

Key Holding

Parliament cannot amend/abridge Fundamental Rights

Reasoning

A constitutional amendment = "law" under Article 13(2); hence must comply with Fundamental Rights

Effect

Froze Parliament's amending power over Part III

Overruled Earlier Rulings

Shankari Prasad (1951) & Sajjan Singh (1965) — which had held amendments were NOT "law" under Art. 13

Parliament's Response

24th Constitutional Amendment (1971) — declared a constitutional amendment is not "law" under Art. 13, restoring full amending power, including over Fundamental Rights

Significance

Set the stage for Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — birth of the Basic Structure Doctrine

Case Name

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Year

1973

Bench

13-judge bench (largest ever in SC)

Verdict

7:6 majority

Chief Justice

S.M. Sikri

Petitioner

Swami Kesavananda Bharati, head of Edneer Mutt, Kerala

Issue

Challenge to Kerala Land Reforms Act; scope of Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368

Key Question

Can Parliament amend any/every part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights?

Held

Parliament has wide power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, but cannot alter its "Basic Structure"

Doctrine Established

Basic Structure Doctrine

Basic Structure Includes

Supremacy of Constitution, Rule of Law, Separation of Powers, Judicial Review, Federalism, Secularism, Sovereign democratic republic, Unity & integrity of nation, Parliamentary system, Free & fair elections (illustrative, not exhaustive)

Cases Overruled

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) partially overruled

Significance

Limits Parliament's amending power; protects core constitutional values from being destroyed by amendment

Later Applied In

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

Case Name

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain

Citation

AIR 1975 SC 2299

Year

1975

Context

Decided during the Emergency period

Bench

5-judge Constitution Bench

Background

Raj Narain challenged PM Indira Gandhi's election victory on grounds of electoral malpractice

Amendment Involved

39th Constitutional Amendment

Purpose of Amendment

Placed election disputes of PM/Speaker beyond judicial review (added Article 329A)

Held

39th Amendment (Art. 329A) struck down as unconstitutional

Reason

Violated Basic Structure — damaged free & fair elections, rule of law, and separation of powers

Doctrine Applied

Basic Structure Doctrine (from Kesavananda Bharati)

Significance

First major real-world application of Basic Structure Doctrine; proved it had practical "teeth," not just theory

Key Basic Structure Elements Reaffirmed

Free & fair elections, Rule of law, Judicial review, Separation of powers

Bench

5-Judge Constitutional Bench

Issue

Constitutional validity of the 42nd Amendment provisions

42nd Amendment Sought To

(1) Give DPSP (Part IV) primacy over Fundamental Rights (Part III); (2) Place constitutional amendments beyond judicial review

Key Holding 1

Struck down clause giving DPSPs unconditional primacy over Fundamental Rights

Key Holding 2

Harmonious balance between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (DPSP) is itself part of the Basic Structure

Key Holding 3

Limited amending power of Parliament (Art. 368) is a basic feature — it cannot be expanded into unlimited power

Key Holding 4

Struck down provision excluding constitutional amendments from judicial review

Core Principle Reinforced

Judicial Review is a non-negotiable, core feature of the Basic Structure

Builds On

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — Basic Structure Doctrine

Significance for CLAT

Tests understanding of Fundamental Rights vs DPSP relationship + limits on amending power

Case Name

Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India

Citation

AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248

Year

1978

Bench

7-Judge Constitutional Bench

Key Judges

M.H. Beg (CJI), Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, P.S. Kailasam

Petitioner

Maneka Gandhi (journalist, wife of Sanjay Gandhi)

Respondent

Union of India

Facts

Govt ne bina koi reason bataye Maneka Gandhi ka passport impound kar liya tha "public interest" ke naam par, under Section 10(3)(c) of Passport Act, 1967

Issue

Kya "procedure established by law" (Article 21) sirf koi bhi procedure ho sakta hai, ya usko fair, just aur reasonable bhi hona chahiye?

Article Involved

Article 21 (Right to Life & Personal Liberty), Article 14, Article 19

Judgment

SC ne kaha ki Article 21 ka "procedure established by law" reasonable, fair aur just hona chahiye — arbitrary nahi ho sakta

Golden Triangle Doctrine

Article 14, 19 aur 21 ab interconnected maane gaye — koi law in teeno ko satisfy kiye bina valid nahi hogi

Overruled

A.K. Gopalan vs State of Madras (1950) ka narrow interpretation of Article 21

Significance

Article 21 ka scope expand hua — Right to Life ab sirf animal existence nahi, balki dignified life ka right ban gaya

Later Impact

Isse aage aur rights derive hue — Right to Privacy, Right to Travel Abroad, Right to Livelihood, etc.

Case Name

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

Citation

AIR 1986 SC 180

Year

1985

Bench

5-judge Constitution Bench

Also Known As

"Pavement Dwellers Case"

Petitioners

Pavement and slum dwellers of Bombay (journalist Olga Tellis and others on their behalf)

Issue

Whether eviction of pavement dwellers violated their Right to Life under Article 21

Petitioners' Argument

Right to life includes right to livelihood; eviction would deprive them of livelihood, violating Art. 21

Held

Right to life under Art. 21 includes right to livelihood — "no person can live without the means of living"

But Also Held

This right is not absolute; can be curtailed by a fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by law (Art. 21 read with Art. 19)

Final Outcome

Evictions permitted, subject to safeguards (reasonable notice, alternative provisions, etc.)

Doctrine/Principle

Expanded interpretation of Article 21; procedural due process requirement (fair, just & reasonable)

Significance

Landmark case widening scope of Art. 21 to include livelihood; balanced individual rights vs. public interest

Related Cases

Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978) — origin of "fair, just & reasonable" procedure test

Bench

9-judge bench, Supreme Court of India

Arose from

Challenges to the Aadhaar scheme

Key Holding

Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right

Constitutional Basis

Article 21 (Right to Life & Personal Liberty) + other Part III freedoms

Scope of Privacy

Informational privacy, bodily autonomy, decisional privacy

Cases Overruled

M.P. Sharma (1954) & Kharak Singh (1962)

Verdict

Unanimous (9-0)

Significance

Foundation for data protection & surveillance law

Later Impact

Paved way for Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (decriminalizing Sec. 377)

CLAT Relevance

Tests personal autonomy, privacy jurisprudence, constitutional interpretation

Bench

9-Judge Constitutional Bench

Issue

Validity of 27% OBC reservation in government jobs (Mandal Commission recommendation)

Key Holding 1

27% reservation for OBCs upheld as constitutionally valid

Key Holding 2

Introduced the "Creamy Layer" concept — socially/economically advanced members of backward classes excluded from reservation benefits

Key Holding 3

Total reservations (SC + ST + OBC) should not exceed 50%, except in extraordinary circumstances

Rationale

Balances the right to equality (Art. 14) with affirmative action (Art. 16(4))

Significance for CLAT

Foundation for later cases on reservation ceiling & EWS quota debate (e.g., Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022)

Citation

AIR 2007 SC 71

(2018) 10 SCC 396

Year

2006

2018

Bench

5-judge Constitution Bench

5-judge Constitution Bench

Issue

Validity of 77th, 81st, 82nd & 85th Amendments enabling reservation in promotions for SC/ST

Whether "creamy layer" exclusion applies to SC/ST for promotion reservations

Held

Upheld constitutional validity of reservation in promotions

Reaffirmed Nagaraj; "creamy layer" concept applies to SC/ST too

Conditions Laid Down

State must collect quantifiable data on: (i) backwardness, (ii) inadequacy of representation, (iii) impact on administrative efficiency

Clarified no need for separate "backwardness" data collection for SC/ST (unlike Nagaraj's requirement)

Key Concept

Reservation in promotion is an "enabling provision," not a fundamental right

Extended Indra Sawhney's creamy layer principle (earlier only for OBCs) to SC/ST

Significance

Set conditions/limits on State's power to provide promotion quotas

Refined & modified Nagaraj; removed the backwardness-data requirement as it contradicted SC/ST's constitutional presumption of backwardness

Related Doctrine

Basic Structure — equality (Art. 14, 16) balanced with reservation

Creamy layer exclusion — ensures benefits reach the truly disadvantaged within SC/ST

Relation Between Cases

Laid foundation with strict conditions

Refined framework by removing one condition & extending creamy layer

Case

Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)

Popular Name

Shah Bano Case

Citation

1985 SCR (3) 844

Bench

5 judges (Constitution Bench)

Issue

Whether a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC beyond the iddat period

Core Holding

Section 125 CrPC is a secular provision, applicable to all citizens irrespective of religion; Shah Bano entitled to maintenance beyond iddat

Reasoning

CrPC provision overrides personal law where there is conflict, to prevent vagrancy/destitution

Aftermath

Political controversy → Parliament enacted Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986

Effect of 1986 Act

Diluted judgment's effect specifically for Muslim women (shifted maintenance burden partly to Waqf Boards/relatives post-iddat)

Significance

Cornerstone for debates on Uniform Civil Code (Art. 44), personal law vs. secular law, religious freedom vs. gender justice

Related Later Case

Daniel Latifi v. Union of India (2001) — upheld constitutionality of 1986 Act by interpreting it harmoniously with Section 125 CrPC principles

Case

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Bench

9 judges

Issue

Scope of President's Rule under Article 356

Core Holding

Art. 356 power subject to judicial review

Floor Test

Majority to be tested on floor of House, not Governor's subjective satisfaction

Basic Structure

Secularism affirmed as part of Basic Structure

Significance

Landmark on federalism & Centre-State relations; checks misuse of Art. 356

Case Name

Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation

AIR 1997 SC 3011

Bench

J.S. Verma CJI, Sujata Manohar J., B.N. Kirpal J.

Background Facts

Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, was gang-raped for attempting to stop a child marriage; absence of workplace sexual harassment law prompted a PIL by women's groups

Issue

Whether sexual harassment at the workplace violates fundamental rights, and whether courts can lay down guidelines absent legislation

Constitutional Provisions Invoked

Articles 14 (Equality), 15, 19(1)(g) (Right to practise any profession), 21 (Right to Life & Personal Dignity)

International Law Used

CEDAW (Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) — read into domestic law via Article 51(c) & 253

Key Holding

Sexual harassment at workplace is a violation of fundamental rights; guidelines to have force of law until Parliament legislates

Doctrine Applied

Judicial Activism / Guidelines under Article 32 (binding under Article 141) to fill legislative vacuum

Vishaka Guidelines (Core Features)

1. Duty of employer to prevent harassment 2. Definition of sexual harassment 3. Complaints Committee (headed by a woman) 4. Preventive steps & awareness 5. Third-party involvement mechanism

Superseded By

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

Significance for CLAT

Judicial law-making, PIL jurisprudence, gender justice, use of international conventions in domestic courts, interplay between judiciary and legislature

Case Name

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India

Year

2018

Court

Supreme Court of India

Bench Strength

5-judge Constitution Bench

Decision

Unanimous

Provision Challenged

Section 377, Indian Penal Code (criminalized "carnal intercourse against the order of nature")

Holding

Section 377 unconstitutional to the extent it criminalized consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex

Articles Violated

Article 14 (Equality), Article 15 (Non-discrimination), Article 19 (Freedom of expression), Article 21 (Right to life, privacy & dignity)

Case Overruled

Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013)

Key Precedent Relied On

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) — Right to Privacy

Core Doctrines Invoked

Constitutional morality, Doctrine of proportionality, Transformative constitutionalism, Right to dignity & autonomy

Significance

Landmark judgment in LGBTQ+ rights jurisprudence; decriminalized consensual homosexual acts; reaffirmed evolving standards of equality and dignity

Case

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

Bench

2 judges

Issue

Constitutional validity of Section 66A, IT Act, 2000

Provision Challenged

Criminalized sending "offensive" messages via communication services

Core Holding

Section 66A struck down in its entirety

Grounds

Unconstitutionally vague; chilling effect on free speech; failed reasonable restriction test under Art. 19(2)

Constitutional Basis

Violated Article 19(1)(a) — freedom of speech and expression

Key Doctrines

Doctrine of vagueness, "Chilling Effect" doctrine

Significance

Landmark on free speech in digital era; balance between speech and reasonable restrictions; relevant to social media/internet governance debates

Petitioner

M.C. Mehta (Environmental Lawyer) — series of PILs

Field of Law

Environmental Law, Tort Law, Constitutional Law

Key Case

Oleum Gas Leak Case (1986) — Shriram Foods & Fertilizers gas leak, Delhi

Doctrine 1

Absolute Liability — enterprises in hazardous/inherently dangerous activities are liable without any exceptions

Contrast

Departs from Strict Liability (Rylands v. Fletcher, English case) which allowed exceptions (act of God, third-party act, etc.)

Doctrine 2

Polluter Pays Principle — polluter bears cost of environmental damage & remediation

Doctrine 3

Precautionary Principle — preventive action even before scientific certainty of harm

Constitutional Impact

Expanded Article 21 to include Right to a Clean & Healthy Environment

Procedural Tool

Demonstrated strength of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as judicial activism

Significance for CLAT

Frequently tested in combined Tort + Constitutional Law passages

Bench

5-Judge Constitutional Bench (Unanimous)

Issue

Title dispute over Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid land, Ayodhya

Key Holding 1

Disputed land handed over to a Trust for construction of a Ram Temple

Key Holding 2

Alternative 5-acre land to be allotted to Sunni Waqf Board for mosque construction

Basis of Decision

Decided on possession and title (evidence law), not on religious belief

On 1992 Demolition

Court held the demolition of Babri Masjid was unlawful

Legal Areas Tested

Evidence Law, Property Law, Limits of Judicial Adjudication in religious-historical disputes

Significance for CLAT

Tests ability to separate legal reasoning (title/possession) from religious/political narrative