Top 25 Landmark Judgments for CLAT PG 2026

Every CLAT PG topper has a secret weapon — a rock-solid grip on landmark cases. These judgments are more than just names in a book; they’re milestones that changed the course of Indian law. Some redefined our freedoms (Puttaswamy on privacy), others challenged deep-rooted social norms (Navtej Singh Johar on LGBTQ+ rights), and a few shook the very way our government and courts work.

The problem? Most students try to mug them up and forget them by exam day. The solution? Learn them the smart way — in simple, clear language you’ll actually remember. This list of 25 hand-picked cases gives you the story, the principle, and the takeaway in a way your brain will thank you for during the exam crunch.

How to Use These Cases for your CLAT PG Prep

1. Make a Quick-Recall Sheet – Write only the case name + one-line principle. Keep it on your desk and glance at it daily.

2. Group by Theme – Club similar cases together (e.g., Fundamental Rights, Criminal Law, Education) so your brain connects them faster.

3. Link to Bare Acts – After each case, note the exact constitutional article or section it dealt with. This makes MCQs and application-based questions easier.

4. Do Reverse Quizzing – Instead of “What did X case say?”, ask “Which case laid down this principle?” This mimics the CLAT PG question style.

5. Teach It Out Loud – Explain each case to yourself in simple words without looking at notes. If you can’t do it, you haven’t learnt it yet.

6. Revise Smart, Not Hard – Go through the full details once, then only revise the one-line significance regularly.

#1 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

Significance: Supreme Court ended the criminalisation of homosexuality by reading down Section 377 IPC for consensual acts between adults.

This case changed the lives of many LGBTQ+ people in India. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was a law made during British rule. It said that any sexual act “against the order of nature” was a crime. Over the years, this section was mostly used to target people in same-sex relationships.

Navtej Singh Johar, a well-known dancer, along with other petitioners, went to the Supreme Court saying this law was unfair. They argued it violated their right to equality, dignity, privacy, and personal freedom under the Constitution.

A 5-judge Constitution Bench agreed. The Court said that who you love and what you do in private with another consenting adult is your personal matter, and the State cannot interfere. The judges stressed that sexual orientation is a natural part of who a person is, and discriminating against it is wrong.

#2 K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India – Two Landmark Cases

Significance: These two cases established privacy as a fundamental right and decided the limits of Aadhaar usage in India.

Case 1: 2017 – Privacy Case

In 2017, a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court said that the right to privacy is part of the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. The Court explained that privacy means control over your personal information, freedom to make personal choices, and protection from unwanted interference. This ruling strengthened citizens’ rights and ensured that the government must have strong reasons before violating someone’s privacy.

Case 2: 2018 – Aadhaar Case
In 2018, the Supreme Court looked at whether Aadhaar violated privacy and freedom. The Court allowed Aadhaar for government welfare schemes and income tax (like PAN linking) because it helped prevent fraud. But it struck down its use by private companies (like banks, telecom operators) and made it clear that Aadhaar could not be forced for services unrelated to subsidies or tax. This balanced the need for Aadhaar with the protection of individual rights.

#3 Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) – Sabarimala Case

Significance: The Supreme Court allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple, saying the ban was against equality and fundamental rights.

In this 2018 case, the Supreme Court looked at a rule that banned women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The temple tradition was based on the belief that the deity, Lord Ayyappa, is a celibate deity. The Court said that such exclusion discriminated against women and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (no discrimination), and 25 (freedom of religion). It held that devotion cannot be based on gender, and constitutional rights are above religious customs if those customs violate equality. The judgment was passed by a 4:1 majority and became a landmark in the fight for gender equality in religious spaces.

#4 Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) – Triple Talaq Case

Significance: The Supreme Court declared instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) unconstitutional and invalid.

In 2017, Shayara Bano challenged the practice of talaq-e-biddat, where a Muslim husband could instantly divorce his wife by saying “talaq” three times in one sitting. She argued that this practice violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (no discrimination), and 21 (right to life and dignity). The Supreme Court, in a 3:2 majority, struck down instant triple talaq, saying it was arbitrary and not an essential part of Islamic practice. The Court clarified that divorce in Islam must follow a fair and reasonable process, not an instant and irreversible pronouncement. This decision was a major step in protecting the rights of Muslim women and paved the way for the government to later pass the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

Want to see how one petition changed Muslim divorce law in India? The Shayara Bano Case on Triple Talaq explains it all.

#5 In Re: Article 370 (2023)

Significance: The Supreme Court upheld the removal of Jammu & Kashmir’s special status and confirmed its reorganisation as Union Territories, while directing restoration of statehood.

In 2019, the Central Government removed Article 370 of the Constitution, which gave Jammu & Kashmir special autonomy, and reorganised the state into two Union Territories—J&K and Ladakh. Several petitions challenged this move, arguing that the government could not change Article 370 without the consent of the state’s Constituent Assembly, which no longer existed. In 2023, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the abrogation, saying that Article 370 was a temporary provision and could be removed by the President. The Court also upheld the validity of reorganising the state but directed that statehood for J&K must be restored “at the earliest.” This judgment confirmed the constitutional validity of one of India’s most significant political decisions in recent history.

#6 Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024)

Significance: The Supreme Court cancelled the Electoral Bonds Scheme and ordered that details of political donors must be made public.

The Electoral Bonds Scheme, introduced in 2018, allowed people and companies to donate money to political parties without revealing their identity to the public. Critics said this promoted secret political funding and could lead to corruption. Petitions were filed challenging the scheme, arguing that it violated the citizens’ right to know about political funding, which is part of the right to information under the Constitution. In 2024, the Supreme Court struck down the scheme, saying it was unconstitutional because it created political opacity and harmed democracy. The Court directed the State Bank of India to share full details of donors, the amount donated, and the recipient parties with the Election Commission, and for these details to be made public. This ruling was seen as a major step towards transparency in elections.

Want to see how the Court dismantled secret political funding? The Judgement on Electoral Bonds Scheme 2024 explains why transparency in democracy is non-negotiable.

#7 Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)

Significance: The Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and jobs.

In 2019, the government passed the 103rd Amendment to give 10% reservation to people from economically weaker sections who do not belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Classes. This was challenged in the Supreme Court, with arguments that it violated the 50% cap on reservations set in earlier judgments and that reservations should be based on social and educational backwardness, not just economic status. In 2022, a 5-judge bench upheld the amendment by a 3:2 majority. The majority said that economic criteria can be used for reservation and that this quota is in addition to the existing 50% limit because it is for a different category. The verdict allowed the EWS quota to continue in education and public employment.

#8 M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

Significance: The Supreme Court allowed reservations in promotions but set conditions like excluding the creamy layer and collecting proof of backwardness.

This case was about whether the government can give reservations in promotions for SCs and STs in government jobs. The 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Constitutional Amendments allowed such reservations. Some people challenged these amendments, saying they violated equality. In 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments but added strict conditions. It said the government must collect data to show that SCs and STs are still backward and not adequately represented in services. Also, the “creamy layer” (the more advanced members of these communities) should be excluded from the benefit. The Court also said these reservations should not harm the efficiency of administration. This ruling balanced the policy of affirmative action with the need for fairness and merit.

#9 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

Significance: The Supreme Court removed Section 66A of the IT Act, protecting people’s right to free speech online.

Explanation:
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act made it a crime to send any “offensive” or “annoying” message online. Many people, including students and activists, were being arrested for posts on Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms. The problem was that the law used vague terms like “annoying” and “offensive,” which could mean anything and gave too much power to the police. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, saying it violated the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court said laws must be clear and cannot be used to silence criticism or unpopular opinions. This judgment became a major milestone in protecting digital freedom of expression in India.

Want to understand how free speech online was safeguarded? Read the story of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India to see why Section 66A was struck down.

#10 Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)

Significance: The Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia and recognised the right to make a “living will” in certain situations.

This case dealt with the question of whether a person has the right to die with dignity if they are suffering from a terminal illness or are in a permanent vegetative state. The NGO Common Cause asked the Court to allow “passive euthanasia,” which means stopping medical treatment or life support so that a person can die naturally. In 2018, the Supreme Court held that the right to die with dignity is part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. It allowed passive euthanasia under strict guidelines and also recognised the validity of a “living will,” a document where a person can state in advance that they do not want life-prolonging treatment if they become terminally ill. This judgment gave legal clarity on end-of-life decisions in India.

#11 Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)

Significance: The Supreme Court confirmed that daughters have equal rights as sons in Hindu ancestral property by birth.

This case was about the interpretation of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Before the amendment, only sons were considered “coparceners” in Hindu joint family property. The 2005 change gave daughters the same rights, but there was confusion about whether this applied only if the father was alive on the date of the amendment. The Supreme Court, in 2020, made it clear that daughters have equal coparcenary rights by birth, just like sons, whether the father is alive or not. This means a daughter’s right is not dependent on her father’s life status and applies even to property inherited before 2005, as long as it was not partitioned earlier. This ruling was a major step towards gender equality in Hindu inheritance laws.

#12 Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium (BALCO) (2012)

Significance: The Supreme Court held that Indian courts cannot interfere in arbitrations seated outside India.

Before this case, Indian courts could get involved in arbitrations even if they were held outside India, due to earlier rulings like Bhatia International. In BALCO, the Supreme Court clarified that the “seat” of arbitration decides which country’s courts can control and supervise the process. If the arbitration seat is outside India, Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (which gives Indian courts certain powers) will not apply. This judgment aligned Indian law with international arbitration standards and reduced unnecessary interference by Indian courts in foreign-seated arbitrations. However, the Court applied this decision only to arbitration agreements made after 6 September 2012.

#13 Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2019)

Significance: The Supreme Court upheld the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) as valid and constitutional.

In this case, the IBC was challenged on grounds that it was unfair to some stakeholders and violated fundamental rights. The petitioners argued that the Code favoured financial creditors over operational creditors and gave too much power to the resolution professional and the Committee of Creditors. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, holding that the IBC’s purpose was to revive sick companies quickly and fairly while balancing all interests. The Court praised the IBC for bringing major reforms in insolvency resolution, improving the economy, and protecting jobs. It also noted that differences between creditor types were based on sound reasoning.

#14 Kulbhushan Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan, ICJ) (2017)

Significance: The ICJ held that Pakistan violated international law by denying India consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav.

Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian national, was arrested in Pakistan in 2016 and accused of spying. He was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court. India took the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing that Pakistan had violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by not informing India immediately about Jadhav’s arrest and by denying consular access. In 2019, the ICJ ruled in India’s favour, stating that Pakistan had breached its obligations under the Convention. The Court ordered Pakistan to give India consular access and to review and reconsider Jadhav’s conviction and sentence. This case reaffirmed the importance of consular rights in protecting foreign nationals.

#15 Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)

Significance: Said that creamy layer rule applies to SC/ST promotions, but no need to prove backwardness with fresh data.

This case was about reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in government jobs. In M. Nagaraj (2006), the Supreme Court had said that the government must collect “quantifiable data” to prove that a group is still backward before giving them promotion benefits. In Jarnail Singh, the Court partly changed that rule. It said that for SC/STs, there is no need to again collect data to prove backwardness — they are already recognised as such in the Constitution. However, the Court made it clear that the “creamy layer” (wealthier and more advanced members of these groups) should not get promotion benefits, so that the truly disadvantaged get the opportunity.

#16 Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers (2001)

Significance: Said that contract workers don’t automatically become permanent employees when contract labour is stopped.

This case dealt with the rights of contract labour under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Workers argued that if the government bans contract labour for a particular type of work, the existing contract workers should be made permanent employees of the company. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that there is no automatic “regularisation” of contract labour when such a ban is imposed. If workers want to be made permanent, they must prove there was a direct employer–employee relationship with the company, not just through a contractor. The judgment clarified that stopping contract labour does not itself create permanent jobs, protecting employers from automatic liability while keeping workers’ rights dependent on proof of direct employment.

#17 Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)

Significance: Said MPs and MLAs lose their seat immediately if convicted for certain crimes.

Before this case, a convicted Member of Parliament (MP) or Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) could continue in office for up to 3 months and even avoid disqualification by filing an appeal. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down this provision as unconstitutional. The Court ruled that if a lawmaker is convicted of a crime and sentenced to at least 2 years in jail, they are immediately disqualified from their seat—no waiting period. This decision was aimed at keeping people with serious criminal convictions out of legislative bodies, ensuring cleaner politics and greater public trust in the democratic process.

#18 NALSA v. Union of India (2014)

Significance: Recognised transgender persons as the “third gender” with equal rights.

The Supreme Court gave a historic judgment for the rights of transgender persons. The Court held that transgender people have the right to be recognised as a third gender, separate from male and female. It said that gender identity is about how a person feels, not just about their biological sex, and everyone has the right to choose it. The Court directed the government to treat transgender persons as socially and educationally backward classes so they can get reservations in jobs and education. It also asked for steps to protect them from discrimination and to promote their dignity. This case became a milestone in ensuring equality and acceptance for the transgender community in India.

#19 T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)

Significance: Defined the rights of minority educational institutions under Article 30.

The Supreme Court clarified how minority educational institutions can function in India. The Court said that minorities (religious or linguistic) have the right under Article 30 to establish and manage their own schools and colleges. However, this right is not absolute. The institutions must maintain academic standards, follow certain regulations, and cannot act arbitrarily. The Court also allowed private unaided colleges to charge reasonable fees, but the state can regulate them to prevent exploitation. This case balanced minority rights with the need for quality education and fairness, providing clear guidelines on admissions, fees, and administration while respecting the constitutional protection for minorities.

#20 Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024)

Significance: Quashed remission of convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape-murder case; Gujarat government lacked authority to release them.

The Supreme Court dealt with the controversial remission of 11 convicts involved in the 2002 Gujarat gangrape and murder case. The Court held that the state of Gujarat did not have the power to grant remission because the case involved heinous crimes against women and children, and the proper authority for remission was not followed. By quashing the remission, the Court reinforced the importance of following due procedure and ensuring justice for victims of serious crimes. This decision emphasised that states cannot bypass legal requirements or moral accountability when it comes to crimes of such gravity. It reaffirmed the Court’s commitment to the rights and dignity of victims.

Want to know why the remission of 11 convicts sparked nationwide outrage? Dive into the Bilkis Bano Case to understand the Court’s reasoning and its message on justice.

#21 Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)

Significance: Set limits on internet shutdowns; emphasized that restrictions must be reasonable and proportional.

The Supreme Court addressed the prolonged internet shutdown in Jammu & Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370. The Court ruled that while the government can suspend internet services in the interest of public order, such actions must follow the law, be necessary, and proportionate. Blanket and indefinite shutdowns are not allowed. The Court stressed that access to the internet is essential for freedom of speech, right to information, and daily life, especially during emergencies. This case established a clear framework for future shutdowns, requiring the authorities to balance security concerns with citizens’ fundamental rights, ensuring that any restriction is carefully justified and not arbitrary.

#22 Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)

Significance: Prevented unnecessary arrests; police must follow CrPC rules before arresting anyone.

The Supreme Court dealt with the problem of routine arrests in cases where it was not needed. The Court observed that police often arrested people without checking whether arrest was actually necessary, especially under sections like 498A of the IPC. The Court directed that before making an arrest, police must follow Sections 41 and 41A of the CrPC, which require them to assess the situation, issue notices, and ensure arrests are truly necessary. This case protects personal liberty and prevents harassment of innocent individuals. It emphasised that arrest is not the first option and should be used only when strictly required, ensuring fairness in the criminal justice system.

#23 Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP (2023)

Significance:
The government isn’t automatically responsible for a Minister’s hate speech; individuals must face accountability.

Supreme Court addressed whether the state government can be held responsible for offensive or hate-filled statements made by its ministers. The Court clarified that the government itself cannot be automatically blamed for a Minister’s speech unless it directly supports or orders it. The judgment emphasized that public officials must be accountable for their personal actions, and remedies like criminal prosecution or civil action can be pursued against the individual Minister. This case reinforced the idea of personal responsibility in governance while protecting the state machinery from undue liability. It also reiterated that citizens have legal avenues to challenge hate speech and seek justice without blaming the entire government for a single person’s statements.

#24 Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023)

Significance: The Court did not allow same-sex marriage but ensured protection against discrimination for queer individuals.

The Supreme Court dealt with the demand for legal recognition of same-sex marriage in India. The Court decided not to change the existing marriage laws to include queer couples, meaning same-sex marriage was not legalized. However, the judgment was significant because it reinforced the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals in other important ways. It directed that queer people should not face discrimination in employment, education, housing, or access to government schemes and services. Essentially, while marriage equality was not granted, the Court strengthened legal safeguards for LGBTQ+ citizens, making it clear that discrimination against them is not acceptable under the law.

#25 P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005)

Significance: Private unaided colleges have the right to manage admissions and fees but must follow reasonable regulations.

The Supreme Court addressed the rights of private unaided educational institutions. The Court held that these colleges are allowed to run independently and manage their admissions and fees without government interference. However, this freedom is not absolute. The institutions must follow reasonable regulations to ensure fairness, prevent exploitation, and maintain educational standards. This case clarified that while the government cannot control private colleges completely, it can set rules to ensure transparency and protect students’ rights. The judgment balances the autonomy of private institutions with the public interest in education, emphasising that education is both a right and a responsibility in society.

Conclusion

Studying these landmark cases will give you a strong foundation for both your exams and your legal reasoning skills. Focus on the facts, the legal principles applied, and the significance of each ruling. For CLAT PG preparation, try creating quick case notes, timelines, or flashcards—these make last-minute revisions smoother. Discussing these cases in study groups or mock tests can also help cement your understanding. Ultimately, the goal is to be able to explain each case in simple terms, connect it to constitutional or legal principles, and apply it to hypothetical situations. With these 25 cases in your toolkit, you’re not just memorising law—you’re learning to think like a lawyer.

If you want us to cover more such judgments, comment and let us know below!

Also Read:

• Top 15 Supreme Court Judgments of 2025 for CLAT PG 2026
• Top 10 Landmark Cases of Constitution