Top 30 Landmark Supreme Court Judgments Every CLAT PG Student Must Know

If you are preparing for CLAT PG, you already know that the GK and legal awareness section is not about memorising random facts. It tests whether you actually understand Indian law — how it evolved, which cases changed the rules, and why certain judgments still matter decades after they were decided.

Supreme Court judgments are not optional reading for CLAT PG. They are the backbone of the legal GK section. Questions are framed around the ratio decidendi, the Articles involved, and what changed after the verdict.

This list covers 30 cases that every serious CLAT PG aspirant must know. Not just the name and year, but what the court actually said and why it matters.

---

How to Use This List

Do not treat this as a one-time read. Come back to it. For each case, you should be able to answer three questions without looking anything up:

1. What was the legal question before the court?
2. What did the court decide and on what basis?
3. What changed in Indian law after this judgment?

If you can answer those three, you are exam-ready on that case.

---

Part 1 — Constitutional Law (The Foundation Cases)

These are the cases that defined what the Indian Constitution actually means. Several of them directly contradict each other, which is itself a favourite CLAT PG topic.

---

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Articles involved: Article 368
Court: 13-judge bench (the largest ever constituted in India)

Parliament passed several amendments in the late 1960s and early 1970s that effectively allowed it to override Fundamental Rights. The question before the court was blunt: Can Parliament amend anything in the Constitution, including the rights themselves?

The court said no. By a razor-thin 7-6 majority, it held that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its "basic structure." What counts as basic structure was left deliberately open, but the judgment listed supremacy of the Constitution, republican and democratic form of government, secularism, separation of powers, and judicial review among others.

This case effectively made the Indian judiciary the final guardian of the Constitution's soul. Every constitutional challenge you will study in law school traces back to this judgment.

---

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Articles involved: Articles 14, 19, 21

The government impounded Maneka Gandhi's passport under the Passport Act without giving reasons. She challenged it under Article 21, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to "procedure established by law."

The court used this case to completely overturn its earlier position (from A.K. Gopalan, discussed below). It held that the procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable — not merely any procedure the legislature decides to enact. It also read Articles 14, 19, and 21 together as a "golden triangle," holding that a law touching Article 21 must also pass the tests of Articles 14 and 19.

This judgment is responsible for much of Indian constitutional law as we know it today — from the right to a fair trial to the right to a clean environment.

---

3. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

Articles involved: Articles 19, 21, 22

One of the earliest major constitutional cases. The Supreme Court held that Articles 19, 21, and 22 were independent of each other — a law valid under one Article did not need to satisfy the others. This gave Parliament enormous power to restrict liberty through legislation.

Gopalan was later overruled by Maneka Gandhi in 1978. You need to know both cases together because CLAT PG passages often ask about the "evolution" of Article 21 — and Gopalan is where that story begins.

---

4. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

Articles involved: Article 368, Article 13

In an 11-judge bench decision, the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights) at all. The court said Fundamental Rights are given to citizens from the Constitution itself and Parliament has no power to take them away.

This was overruled six years later by Kesavananda Bharati, which allowed amendments but imposed the basic structure limitation instead. Know both cases together.

---

5. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

Articles involved: Articles 31C, 368

Parliament had amended the Constitution to give DPSPs absolute priority over Fundamental Rights and to remove judicial review of such amendments. The Supreme Court struck both changes down, holding that they damaged the basic structure.

The case stands for a principle that comes up often in CLAT PG — that Fundamental Rights and DPSPs must exist in harmony, not in conflict. Neither can be made completely subordinate to the other.

---

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

Articles involved: Article 356

President's Rule had become a tool for removing state governments the central government disliked. Between 1950 and 1994, Article 356 was invoked over 90 times, many of them questionable.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the proclamation of President's Rule is subject to judicial review. It also held that federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution, meaning Parliament cannot legislate it away. Before dismissing a state government, the floor of the Vidhan Sabha must be allowed to test whether the government has lost its majority.

The misuse of Article 356 dropped sharply after this judgment.

---

7. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

Articles involved: Articles 31B, 368, Schedule 9

Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution were thought to be completely immune from judicial review — Parliament had used this to protect land reform and other legislation from challenge. The Supreme Court held that even Ninth Schedule laws can be struck down if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly Fundamental Rights under Part III.

A 9-judge bench decided this case, making it one of the most authoritative pronouncements on the limits of parliamentary power.

---

Part 2 — Fundamental Rights

8. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

Articles involved: Articles 14, 19, 21

After the brutal gang-rape of a social worker in Rajasthan, a women's rights group filed a PIL asking the court to lay down guidelines on sexual harassment at the workplace. No legislation existed at the time.

The court stepped in and issued the Vishaka Guidelines — which effectively became binding law until Parliament enacted the POSH Act in 2013. The judgment also drew from international conventions (CEDAW) to expand Article 21 rights. CLAT PG frequently tests this case in passages about PIL and gender justice.

---

9. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

Articles involved: Article 21

The government argued that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right. It relied on older judgments — M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) — to support this position.

A 9-judge bench unanimously overruled both earlier cases and held that privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21. The judgment has wide implications for surveillance, data protection, and the Aadhaar scheme. It is one of the most cited Indian constitutional judgments globally.

---

10. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

Provision challenged: Section 377, IPC

A 5-judge bench unanimously read down Section 377 to the extent it criminalised consensual same-sex relations between adults. The court applied the transformative constitutionalism framework and held that constitutional morality must prevail over social morality.

This case is important not just for what it decided but for how the court reasoned — the concept of constitutional morality versus social morality is a major CLAT PG topic.

---

11. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)

Provision challenged: Section 497, IPC

The court struck down the offence of adultery under the old IPC. Section 497 made adultery a criminal offence only for men, and the law treated a married woman as the property of her husband. The court held this violated Articles 14, 15, and 21.

---

12. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Articles involved: Articles 15, 16

After the Mandal Commission Report was implemented, the government reserved 27% of central government jobs for Other Backward Classes. The judgment upheld OBC reservations but came with three crucial conditions: a 50% ceiling on total reservations, the exclusion of the creamy layer from OBC benefits, and the bar on reservations in promotions.

This case is the foundation of India's reservation jurisprudence. Know the 50% cap and the creamy layer concept well — both come up constantly.

---

13. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)

Articles involved: Articles 15, 29, 46

This was the first Supreme Court judgment on reservations — a woman was denied admission to a medical college because her caste quota was full. The court struck down the communal order because it violated Article 15(1).

Parliament responded by adding Article 15(4) through the First Constitutional Amendment, allowing the state to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes. One judgment, one amendment — a clean chain of cause and effect that CLAT PG loves to test.

---

14. TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)

Articles involved: Articles 19(1)(g), 30

An 11-judge bench laid down the law on private and minority educational institutions — their right to establish and administer institutions, the scope of state regulation, and the extent to which minority institutions can reserve seats for their community.

---

15. Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. (1993)

Articles involved: Article 21

The court held that the right to education up to the age of 14 is part of Article 21. This judgment directly preceded the insertion of Article 21A through the 86th Constitutional Amendment in 2002, which made free and compulsory education a fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14.

---

Part 3 — Environment and PIL

16. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Shriram Gas Leak, 1986)

Articles involved: Article 21, Article 32

A gas leak from a factory in Delhi caused deaths. The court used this case to establish the principle of absolute liability — an enterprise engaged in hazardous activity is liable for all harm caused, with no exceptions. This is stricter than the English rule of strict liability from Rylands v. Fletcher, which had exceptions like act of God or third-party intervention.

Indian environmental law effectively starts here.

---

17. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution, 1987)

The same advocate, M.C. Mehta, filed a series of PILs that turned the Supreme Court into an active environmental regulator. The Ganga pollution case shut down tanneries discharging effluents into the river and established that industries cannot use rivers as dumping grounds. Know Mehta's name — he appears in multiple landmark environmental cases.

---

18. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

The court formally incorporated the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle into Indian law, drawing from international environmental conventions. These two principles are now the backbone of environmental jurisprudence in India.

---

19. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)

Articles involved: Article 21

The court held that the right to live in a pollution-free environment is part of Article 21. A short judgment but frequently cited and tested.

---

Part 4 — Criminal Law and Personal Liberty

20. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

Articles involved: Articles 21, 22

In response to a letter about custodial deaths, the Supreme Court treated it as a PIL and issued specific guidelines for arrest and detention — the arresting officer must identify themselves, the arrested person must be informed of grounds of arrest, a memo must be prepared, and the family must be informed. These guidelines were later incorporated into the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---

21. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)

Articles involved: Article 21

A lawyer filed a PIL after newspaper reports revealed that thousands of undertrial prisoners in Bihar had been in jail for longer than the maximum sentence for the offences they were charged with. The court held that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21. This case opened the door to PIL as a vehicle for protecting the rights of those who cannot access courts themselves.

---

22. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)

Provision: Section 302, IPC; Section 354(3), CrPC

The court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty but restricted its use to the "rarest of rare" cases. It listed factors — aggravating and mitigating circumstances — that courts must weigh before imposing capital punishment.

---

23. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)

The court built on Bachan Singh and gave more concrete guidance on when a case qualifies as "rarest of rare." It identified five categories — manner of murder, motive, antisocial nature, magnitude, and the personality of the victim — to help courts apply the standard. Both Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh are always tested together.

---

Part 5 — Judiciary and Separation of Powers

24. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) — First Judges Case

The court held that the executive (the Law Minister and President acting on the advice of Cabinet) had primacy in judicial appointments. The Chief Justice's opinion was consultative, not binding. This effectively gave the government control over who became a High Court or Supreme Court judge.

---

25. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) — Second Judges Case

The court reversed S.P. Gupta. It held that in matters of appointment and transfer of judges, the Chief Justice of India has primacy. The collegium system — under which the CJI consults with the two senior-most judges — was established. The government could not override the collegium's recommendation.

---

26. In Re: Special Reference 1 of 1998 — Third Judges Case

The President sought the court's opinion on the collegium system. The court expanded the collegium to include the CJI plus the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. It also clarified that the collegium's final recommendation is binding on the government.

---

27. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) — Fourth Judges Case / NJAC Judgment

Parliament passed the 99th Constitutional Amendment, which created the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the collegium. The NJAC included the CJI, two senior judges, the Law Minister, and two eminent persons — which meant the executive would have a formal role in appointments again.

The Supreme Court struck this down as unconstitutional, holding that judicial independence is a basic feature of the Constitution and the NJAC would compromise it. The collegium system continues.

---

Part 6 — Property, Social Justice, and Other Landmark Cases

28. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)

Articles involved: Article 21

Pavement dwellers in Bombay challenged their eviction without notice. The court held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21 — because without a livelihood, life itself cannot be sustained. Before evicting, the state must give notice and an opportunity to be heard.

---

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

Provision: Section 125, CrPC

Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim woman, was divorced by her husband through triple talaq after 43 years of marriage. The Supreme Court held she was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC — which applies to all women regardless of religion.

The political reaction was intense. Parliament then passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986, which effectively nullified the judgment. The case is a study in the tension between personal law, secularism, and women's rights — all themes CLAT PG passages return to regularly.

---

30. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

Articles involved: Articles 16(4), 16(4A), 335

The court upheld reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but with conditions — the state must collect quantifiable data showing backwardness and inadequate representation, and must show that efficiency of administration will not be compromised. These conditions have since generated extensive litigation and remain contested.

---

Key Patterns to Notice

A few things stand out when you look at this list as a whole.

Article 21 appears in more cases than any other provision. The Supreme Court has treated it as an expanding container — reading privacy, livelihood, education, a clean environment, a speedy trial, and much more into the right to life and personal liberty. Any CLAT PG passage about rights probably connects back to Article 21.

The judges cases (S.P. Gupta through NJAC) form a single story. Read them in sequence. The arc from executive primacy to judicial supremacy to the failed attempt at a mixed commission is something examiners love to frame questions around.

PIL cases require you to know the human story, not just the legal rule. Hussainara Khatoon started with a letter and ended with thousands of prisoners being freed. M.C. Mehta was not a lawyer by training when he filed his first PIL — he was a social activist. These details matter because CLAT PG passages on PIL tend to describe the factual background and ask legal questions from there.

Overruling chains — Gopalan overruled by Maneka, Golaknath overruled by Kesavananda, S.P. Gupta overruled by the Second Judges Case — are a favourite testing ground. Know which case overruled which, and understand what changed.

---

A Word on How CLAT PG Actually Tests These Cases.

Once you have these cases down, the next challenge is applying them under exam pressure. If you are giving CLAT PG mock tests and not seeing the improvement you expected, the issue is often not knowledge; it is how you are approaching the test itself. Read 10 Mistakes Students Make in CLAT PG Mock Tests to find out what actually kills scores and how to fix each one before your next attempt.

CLAT PG does not ask "In which year was Kesavananda Bharati decided?" That is CLAT UG territory.

At the PG level, a passage will extract a few paragraphs from a judgment or from academic writing about a judgment, and then ask you to:

• Identify the principle applied
• Apply that principle to a new fact situation
• Distinguish between the two cases on their facts
• Identify which judgment a quoted passage comes from
• Evaluate whether a subsequent law is consistent with the judgment

This means reading the actual language of judgments, not just summaries, is worthwhile. The phrases "procedure established by law," "rarest of rare," "basic structure," "constitutional morality," and "absolute liability" are used in precise technical senses. Know what they mean and where they came from.

---

Quick Reference Table

Case	Year	Key Principle	Articles
Kesavananda Bharati	1973	Basic Structure Doctrine	Art. 368
Maneka Gandhi	1978	Golden Triangle; fair procedure	Arts. 14, 19, 21
A.K. Gopalan	1950	Independent operation of Articles (overruled)	Arts. 19, 21, 22
Golaknath	1967	FRs unamendable (overruled)	Arts. 13, 368
Minerva Mills	1980	Harmony between FRs and DPSPs	Arts. 31C, 368
S.R. Bommai	1994	Federalism; Art. 356 reviewable	Art. 356
I.R. Coelho	2007	9th Schedule subject to basic structure	Arts. 31B, 368
Vishaka	1997	Workplace sexual harassment guidelines	Arts. 14, 19, 21
Puttaswamy	2017	Privacy is a FR	Art. 21
Navtej Singh Johar	2018	Section 377 read down	Art. 21
Joseph Shine	2018	Adultery law struck down	Arts. 14, 15, 21
Indra Sawhney	1992	50% cap; creamy layer; no reservation in promotions	Arts. 15, 16
Champakam Dorairajan	1951	Led to Art. 15(4) insertion	Arts. 15, 29
TMA Pai	2002	Private educational institutions' rights	Arts. 19, 30
Unni Krishnan	1993	Right to education under Art. 21	Art. 21
Shriram Gas Leak	1986	Absolute liability	Art. 21, 32
Ganga Pollution	1987	PIL; industrial pollution	Art. 21
Vellore Citizens	1996	Precautionary & polluter pays principles	Art. 21
Subhash Kumar	1991	Clean environment under Art. 21	Art. 21
D.K. Basu	1997	Arrest guidelines; custodial torture	Arts. 21, 22
Hussainara Khatoon	1979	Speedy trial as FR	Art. 21
Bachan Singh	1980	Rarest of rare; death penalty	Sec. 302 IPC
Machhi Singh	1983	Five categories for rarest of rare	Sec. 302 IPC
S.P. Gupta	1982	Executive primacy in appointments	Art. 124
Second Judges Case	1993	Collegium established; judicial primacy	Art. 124
Third Judges Case	1998	Collegium expanded to CJI + 4 judges	Art. 124
NJAC Case	2015	NJAC struck down; collegium reaffirmed	Arts. 124A-C
Olga Tellis	1985	Livelihood as part of Art. 21	Art. 21
Shah Bano	1985	Maintenance for Muslim divorced women	Sec. 125 CrPC
M. Nagaraj	2006	Conditions for reservation in promotions	Arts. 16(4), 335

---

When you feel ready to test how well these judgments have actually stuck, Start with a free full-length test. This guide on the Free CLAT PG Mock Test 2027 also walks you through how to attempt, analyse, and actually improve from every mock, not just check the score and move on.

What to Read Next

If this list is your starting point, here is where to go from here:

For constitutional law cases — Read the headnotes of the actual judgments on the Supreme Court's website (main.sci.gov.in). The headnotes give you the court's own summary in two or three paragraphs.

For PIL cases — The Vishaka judgment and D.K. Basu are short enough to read in full. Do that. You will remember them better.

For the judges cases — Read them in sequence. Each one builds on or reacts to the previous one.

For reservation cases — Indra Sawhney and M. Nagaraj together cover about 80% of what CLAT PG will ask you. Champakam Dorairajan gives the historical foundation.

Check back here as we add case summaries, passage-based practice questions, and topic-wise mock tests for CLAT PG.

---