CLAT PG 2026 Most Expected Topics

Preparing for CLAT PG 2026 requires not just rote learning but a strategic focus on topics that are most likely to appear in the exam. While the syllabus is vast, certain areas consistently attract attention due to their constitutional significance, evolving judicial interpretations, and recent controversies.

To help aspirants streamline their preparation, we have curated a list of the 10 most expected topics for CLAT PG 2026. These topics cover key areas of Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, and contemporary legal developments, including landmark judgments and recent updates from 2023-25. Let’s begin.

#1 Electoral Bonds & Political Funding

This is a goldmine topic for CLAT PG 2026 because it combines Constitutional Law, Election Law, and Legal Current Affairs.

• Struck down by SC in 2024 → direct impact on the transparency of elections.

• Tested balance between Right to Information (Art. 19(1)(a)) and donor anonymity.

Here’s everything you must cover:

Background

• Electoral Bonds were introduced in the 2017 Finance Act to allow anonymous political donations via SBI.

• Criticised for destroying transparency, giving ruling parties an undue advantage.

• A series of petitions were filed (ADR, Common Cause, etc.) → SC reserved judgment (2023) → delivered landmark ruling Feb 2024.

Statutory Framework

• Representation of the People Act, 1951 (qualification, disqualification, election process, corrupt practices).

• Companies Act, 2013 – Section 182 on corporate donations.

• Finance Act, 2017 – introduced the Electoral Bonds Scheme.

• Constitution of India – Art. 19(1)(a) → Right to information as part of free speech (PUCL v. Union of India – voters’ right to know criminal antecedents of candidates), Art. 14 (equality).

• Doctrine: Free and fair elections = part of the Basic Structure (Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain).

Must-Study Cases

1. ⭐ Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors. v. Election Commission of India (2025) – Tests constitutional principles around free & fair elections, administrative discretion of ECI, and remedial powers of judiciary.

2. Union of India v. ADR (2002) – candidates must disclose criminal records, assets, and liabilities.

3. PUCL v. Union of India (2003) – right to know antecedents of candidates = part of Art. 19(1)(a).

4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – free & fair elections = basic structure.

Questions To Practice

• Which Article was key in striking down Electoral Bonds?

• If corporate donations are unlimited & anonymous, does it violate RTI?

• Critically analyse SC’s ruling in ADR v. UOI (2024).

#2 President’s rule & Article 370

This topic is important because President’s Rule (Art. 356) – classic exam favourite, federalism question. Art. 370 (J&K Special Status) – abrogation in 2019 + SC ruling in 2023 → huge constitutional change. 

It is also linked to the separation of powers, federalism, and Centre–State relations.

Background

• Art. 356 (President’s Rule) → misused often (1960s–90s).

• Controlled in S.R. Bommai v. UOI (1994) – limited power of the Centre.

• Article 370 granted Jammu and Kashmir special autonomy; it was abrogated in 2019.

• SC ruling 2023 (In Re: Art. 370) upheld abrogation → triggered debates on federalism & constitutionalism.

Statutory Framework

• Constitution of India – Art. 356 (President’s Rule (failure of constitutional machinery in States)), Art. 365 (Failure to comply with the Union’s directions = ground for Art. 356), Art. 370 (temporary special status for J&K (before abrogation)), Art. 368 (Amendment powers).

Must-Study Cases

• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) – Misuse of Art. 356 by Centre to dismiss state govts.

• ⭐ In Re: Article 370, 2023 – upheld abrogation, Parliament had power.

• State of Rajasthan v. UOI, 1977 – scope of Art. 356.

Questions To Practice

• Which case placed judicial limits on Art. 356?

• If the President dissolves the Assembly before the floor test, is it valid?

• Critically analyse SC’s ruling on the abrogation of Art. 370.

Deepen your constitutional law preparation by accessing a definitive guide to every constitutional judgment crucial for the CLAT PG 2026 exam.

#3 Arrest & Bail

Any statutory & constitutional safeguards around arrest without warrant, grounds of arrest, remand, and bail (including anticipatory or regular bail), especially under stringent laws (UAPA, PMLA, etc.).

Recent SC rulings have strengthened procedural safeguards around arrest (ground of arrest, remand orders) under UAPA and PMLA. 

Background

• Historically, arrest power under the CrPC had been misused; often arrests were made mechanically without checking the necessity.

• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) laid down guidelines: arrests should be an exception, not routine; under a certain threshold (punishment < 7 yrs, etc.).

• Over time, statutory amendments (CrPC, with sections 41, 41A) tried to regulate arrest without warrant and the requirement of notice in lieu of arrest.

Statutory Framework

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sec. 41 (Allows police to arrest without warrant under certain conditions, Notice in lieu of arrest) Sec. 50 (Informing the arrested person of their right to know grounds of arrest).

• Constitution of India – Art. 22(1) (Everyone who is arrested must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be).

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Has many provisions in the chapter on “Arrest of Persons” (Chapter 5), including the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest, the rights of the arrested person, etc.

• Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA)

• Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)

Must-Study Cases

• ⭐ Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) – Mortarizing arrests under CrPC Section 41. Arrests should be an exception; police must satisfy prescribed conditions.

• Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) – Right to be informed of grounds of arrest, when to grant bail under a stringent law; connected with procedural safeguards. (This case has been cited in Prabir Purkayastha's discussions.)

• Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) – Remand orders and arrests are invalid if procedural safeguards are not followed: grounds of arrest must be in writing, and the remand application must be supplied to the accused/counsel.

• V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director (2024) –  Even for stringent penal statutes (UAPA/PMLA etc.), higher thresholds for bail cannot be used as tools to keep accused lodged indefinitely, especially when trial is delayed.

• Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) – Constitutionality of failure to inform grounds of arrest → violates Article 22(1). Arrest memo or police diary entries alone are insufficient.

Questions To Practice

• Which Section requires police to record reasons for arrest? (Answer: Section 41A(3) or Section 41(1)(b)- satisfaction & reason)

• Under which Article is “grounds of arrest must be communicated to the arrested person”? (Article 22(1))

• If a person is arrested under UAPA and not given written grounds of arrest, can he be released/remanded?

• Analyse Prabir Purkayastha (2024) and how it changes the law of remand/grounds of arrest.

• Compare Arnesh Kumar vs newer BNSS provisions — what stayed the same, what changed.

#4 Narco-analysis Tests – Amlesh Kumar Case

For this topic focus: Whether involuntary narco-analysis (forced) is permissible; when voluntary narco-analysis may be acceptable; what evidentiary value reports of such tests can have; interplay with rights under Articles 20(3), 21, and criminal procedure (bail, etc.).

Background

• Supreme Court decision in Amlesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (9 June 2025) clarified limits on narco-analysis. A High Court order that allowed forced narco-analysis during investigation/bail was set aside.

• Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) is the landmark prior case that held involuntary narco-analysis (and similar techniques) violate Articles 20(3) and 21. It sets down that such tests without consent are unconstitutional, and their results are not admissible as evidence per se.

• Over the years, there have been conflicting High Court orders in which some courts permitted narco tests during bail or investigation (some parts assuming consent or allowing technical/investigative innovations).

• The particular fact pattern in Amlesh Kumar: FIR registered under various IPC sections in a dowry/custody-disappearance case; bail plea in Patna High Court; during bail hearing, the investigating officer proposed that narco-analysis tests be done on all accused & some witnesses; Patna High Court accepted that proposal.

Statutory Framework

• Constitution of India – Art. 20(3) (Right against self-incrimination.) and Art. 21 (Right to life & personal liberty.).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – especially bail provisions (Section 439 CrPC, etc.). With BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) coming in, parts of CrPC are modified for arrest / etc. However, the focus here is on procedural law regarding bail / investigative powers.

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 (Discovery of Facts Resulting from Information Given by the Accused).

Must-Know Cases

• Selvi v. State of Karnataka,(2010) – holds involuntary narco/polygraph etc. violate Art. 20(3)/21; results not admissible as evidence per se.

• ⭐ Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2025) – the key recent ruling. Clarifies limits of narco-analysis, sets aside forced direction, and defines what is permissible.

• Vinobhai v. State of Kerala (2025) – referred to in Amlesh Kumar, about the evidentiary value of voluntary narco tests.

Questions To Practice

• Which Article protects against involuntary narco-analysis?

• Under what section of the Evidence Act can information discovered via narco-analysis (if voluntary) be admitted?

• True/False: “An accused has an absolute right to demand a narco-analysis test.”

Ready to take the next step? Get all the details on the CLAT 2026 application details, ie, process, key dates, and eligibility requirements.

#5 Extradition

It is the law and procedure for surrendering fugitives between states (countries). Recent high-profile example: extradition of Tahawwur Hussain Rana (linked to 2008 Mumbai attacks) to India (April 2025).

Background

• Rana’s extradition (US → India, Apr 2025) is one of the few major terrorism-related extraditions in recent years; it shows diplomatic, prosecutorial and treaty-level coordination.

• Extradition enables a state to request the return of a fugitive from another state to face criminal proceedings or serve a sentence.

• Generally, the flow is: Request by the requesting state → executive/central authority review → magisterial inquiry in the requested state → surrender order (if legal tests satisfied) → handover.

• Tahawwur Rana was a Pakistani-born Canadian businessman long alleged to have links to Lashkar-e-Taiba. He was convicted in the US on related charges, fought extradition requests, and, after prolonged litigation, was extradited to India in Apr 2025 to face charges tied to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The transfer followed layered litigation in US courts and diplomatic engagement.

Statutory Framework

• The Extradition Act, 1962 – the domestic statute governing extradition requests received by India and the procedure India follows when it seeks surrender from others. Chapters II & III (requisition, magisterial inquiry, warrant, surrender).

Questions To Practice

• Given facts: Country A requests the surrender of X for murder; Country B’s offence list doesn’t include an identical offence. Is extradition possible? (dual criminality and prima facie test.)

• What is the Extradition Act, 1962 — name a key procedure? (e.g., magisterial inquiry).

• Define dual criminality/speciality.

Stay ahead in your CLAT PG 2026 preparation! Explore the landmark judgments that could shape your exam. Read our detailed insights now and boost your score!

#6 POCSO

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: a statutory framework that defines sexual offences against persons under 18, procedure for investigation/trial, special courts, protections for the child, and several evidentiary presumptions.

Background

• In Sept 2024, the Supreme Court held that viewing, possessing and storing material depicting minors in sexual activity is punishable under POCSO. – That decision is a major shift on the “child pornography” question in India and is repeatedly cited in 2024–25 litigation and trials.

• POCSO (2012) was enacted to create a child-friendly, gender-neutral framework for punishing sexual offences against children and to speed up trials by Special Courts. It criminalises penetrative sexual assault, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and child pornography; provides for in-camera trials, recorded testimony, and protection of the child’s identity.

• Over time, Parliament strengthened penalties (2019 amendments increased minimum punishments). Courts have clarified the ambit of offences, the scope of presumptions (sections 29–30), and procedure, recently addressing digital forms of abuse (possession/viewing of sexual material involving minors).

Statutory Framework

• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Sec. 2(d) (“child” means person below 18 years), Sec. 3 (Penetrative sexual assault, Sec. 7 (Sexual harassment (includes sexual gestures, repeatedly following, showing sexual objects), Sec. 11 (Child pornography), Secs. 29-30 (Presumption clauses), Secs. 33-42 (Procedure)

Must-Study Cases

• ⭐ Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors. (2024) – held that viewing, storing and possessing material depicting minors engaged in sexual activity is punishable under POCSO.

• Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) – Exception 2 to IPC Section 375 (marital rape exception) read down to not apply to girls under 18. Clarified the overlap of IPC and POCSO.

• State of Maharashtra v. Satish (2021) — Important on interpretation of “sexual assault” (the infamous “skin-to-skin” judgment later set aside).

• XYZ v. State of Kerala (2024, Kerala HC) — Upheld conviction under POCSO based on digital evidence; stressed the importance of electronic chain of custody.

Questions To Practice

• Which sections create a presumption of sexual intent?

• If someone views child sexual material on their phone (no evidence of distribution), is POCSO attracted after Sept 2024?

• Sections 29–30 shift the burden and what an accused must prove to rebut the presumption.

#7 Freedom of Speech (Ranbeer Allahabadia Controversy)

High-profile FIRs and SC hearings (Feb–Mar 2025) happened after Allahbadia’s remarks on a YouTube show put online creators and platform regulation on trial. The Supreme Court gave interim protection but severely criticised the content and barred further broadcasts pending the case.

Background

• Digital creators increasingly face criminal complaints for content deemed obscene/offensive. India’s statutory and case law historically distinguishes between “obscene” (which can be restricted) and merely “foul or profane” language (which may be protected).

• In February 2025, clips from the YouTube show India’s Got Latent, containing a lewd remark by Ranveer Allahbadia, drew multiple FIRs across states, political backlash, and parliamentary questions. Police registered FIRs under IT/obscenity provisions; the matter reached the Supreme Court, which (i) granted interim protection from arrest, (ii) barred further episodes/broadcast of the show, and (iii) criticised the remarks as “disgusting” and “filthy.

Statutory Framework

• Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of speech and expression), Article 19(2) (Reasonable restrictions)

• Information Technology Act, 2000 – Section. 67/67B (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form)

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 – Some FIRs referred to BNS sections on obscenity.

• Indian Penal Code (older cases/cross-reference) – Secs. Like 292/293/294 (obscenity/indecent acts) and 295A (outraging religious feelings) may also be invoked, depending on allegations.

Must-Study Cases

• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) – expansive view of free speech.

• Allahabadia v. Union of India, the matter reported as Allahabadia (Ranveer) interim orders - Supreme Court, Feb-Mar 2025 – SC granted interim protection from arrest, directed no new FIRs on the episode, barred further episodes/broadcast pending outcome, and strongly criticised the content as obscene.

• College Romance (March 2024, SC quashing proceedings) – earlier case where SC quashed obscenity proceedings against creators; used to draw contrast showing courts sometimes protect creators where content is not obscene as a whole.

Questions To Practice

• Which Article permits reasonable restrictions for decency/obscenity? (19(2))

• Which statute punishes the transmission of obscene material online? (IT Act s.67 / BNS equivalents).

• Fact pattern: Influencer uses explicit sexual language on a live episode and receives FIRs across states. Is the speech protected? Apply the three-part test (law, legitimate aim, proportionality). Use College Romance (quash) vs Ranveer (SC critical) to compare.

Stay ahead of the curve! Download a curated list of all the major 2025 Supreme Court judgments you need to know for your exam preparation.

#8 Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025

The Amendment Act, passed in 2025, has sparked multiple petitions in the SC, protests, and political debates. SC has recently stayed selective clauses but refused to stay the entire Act.

Background

• Original Waqf Act, 1995: governance of Waqf properties, boards, mutawallis, user “waqf by user”, registration, etc.

• Over the years, there were issues of mismanagement, encroachments, lack of transparency in Waqf boards & properties, disputes over documentation, properties not registered, lack of clarity over ownership, and inadequate oversight.

• The government proposed amendments, passed the Bill in Parliament (2025), and received the President’s assent to become the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Critics argue it centralises power, imposes new requirements (e.g. religious practice requirements), restricts the rights of State Waqf Boards, and imposes stricter eligibility criteria.

Statutory Framework

• Waqf Act, 1995 – original statute governing waqfs.

• Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 – Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency, and Development Act, 2025 – Sec. 3(r) (requirement of practising Islam for at least five years for dedicating property as waqf), Sec. 2(c) – clarifying “waqf by user” / when property without formal deed but used as waqf will be recognised, Sec 23 (composition of boards / non-Muslim representation)

• Constitution of India – Art. 14 (Equality), Art. 25, 26 (freedom of religion)

Questions To Practice

• Suppose a property used as a waqf by a user for decades without a formal deed; Amendment requires a formal deed / 5-year practising clause — is this property at risk? What constitutional rights are engaged?

• If the State Waqf Board composition requires non-Muslim members exceeding the limit set by the Amendment, challenge under Art 25/26/14.

• Which clause in the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, was stayed by the SC for requiring 5 5-year practice of Islam for waqf creation?

#9 Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Several recent SC judgments (2024-25) have struck down rules discriminating against PwDs (especially visually impaired) in judicial services; Courts have held that disability-based discrimination is as serious as discrimination under other protected categories. Also, recent cases about polling accessibility, reservation policy in education/admission, inclusion, etc.

Background

• Earlier law was the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act, 1995. That had limitations in implementation and scope. India ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The RPwD Act, 2016, was enacted to modernise, widen definitions, provide stronger enforcement, and include benchmarks for disability, accessible environments, and other related areas.

• Over time, there have been complaints of exclusion — colleges imposing extra conditions, employment rules discriminating, a lack of physical accessibility, and caste-oriented or visually-impaired persons being excluded from certain services or jobs. Judicial enforcement has increased in the last 2–3 years, especially in marginalised cases.

Statutory Framework

• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) – Sec. 2(r) (Defines Person with Benchmark Disability), Sec. 12 ( Right to access justice), Sec. 32 (Reservation in government education/institutions)

• Reasonable accommodation - The law requires that institutions/employers make modifications so that a person with disability can enjoy or exercise rights on an equal basis.

Must-Study Cases

• Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind (2013) – Directed proper implementation of 3% reservation under the 1995 Act (predecessor to RPwD 2016).

• In Re: Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services (2025) – It was held that visually impaired candidates are eligible for judicial service. Struck down discriminatory service rules; disability discrimination ≈ violates fundamental rights.

• Muruhanatham v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025, Madras HC) – Court ordered the state to ensure barrier-free access in government buildings and public offices. Emphasised “reasonable accommodation” is not charity but a right. Reinforced state obligation under Section 40 of the RPwD Act (standards of accessibility).

• Omkar v. Union of India (2024, Delhi HC) – Candidate with benchmark disability denied UPSC cadre choice due to rigid medical board norms. The Court held that UPSC and DoPT must re-evaluate on the basis of “reasonable accommodation” and not arbitrary medical exclusion.

Questions To Practice

• Suppose a visually impaired candidate meets all educational qualifications but fails a procedural / vision test in a judicial service advertisement. Is exclusion valid? Apply to the Visually Impaired Judicial Services SC 2025 case.

• If a college prospectus asks for “able to speak and hear” as eligibility, denying reservation benefit under the RPwD Act — is that constitutional?

• What is “reasonable accommodation” in the context of disability law?

#10 Reservation Policy & Creamy Layer Debate

There are ongoing debates about expanding or limiting reservations; states are tweaking OBC/SEBC lists; recent SC rulings continue to define the “creamy layer” and its application to various schemes.

Background

• Reservation in India traces back to the Government of India Act, 1935, and later Article 15 & 16 of the Constitution (1950).

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992, SC) – First major judgment defining backward classes, introducing the 50% ceiling and creamy layer concept.

• Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra (2021, SC) – Addressed state-level deviations in defining backward classes and applying creamy layer, reaffirming the principle that economically advanced OBCs cannot claim reservation benefits.

Statutory Framework

• Constitution of India – Articles 15(4) & 16(4) (Allow the state to make special provisions for backward classes.)

• Central & State OBC/SEBC lists – Specific to each state; determines eligibility for reservation.

• The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Complementary in the context of SC/ST reservations.

Must-Study Cases

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – Ratio: 27% OBC reservation upheld; introduced the 'creamy layer' concept; set a 50% ceiling (except in extraordinary circumstances).

• Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra (2021) – Ratio: Clarified that state governments must align with the creamy layer principle; economically advanced OBCs excluded; upheld procedural correctness in state-level backwardness criteria.

• M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) – Special provisions and backward class identification must be evidence-based.

Questions To Practice

• Principles of creamy layer and its application to OBC reservations.

• Validity of state-specific reservation deviations.

• How reservation balances equality (Article 14) and affirmative action (Articles 15 & 16).

• Ceiling limits: Can states exceed 50%? Case-based illustration.

• Application of the 'creamy layer' in central services, the judiciary, and education.

Beyond these topics, learn which other CLAT PG 2026 Important Subjects carry maximum weightage and how to prioritise your study plan.

Conclusion

Keeping up with important judgments, recent legal developments, and current controversies is key if you want to do well in CLAT PG 2026. The 10 topics listed above mix core legal principles with things happening right now, making them really important to focus on. By studying these topics carefully, learning the relevant laws, landmark and recent cases, and how they apply in real situations, you’ll be better prepared for both multiple-choice questions and case-based problems. Paying attention to these areas will not only boost your exam readiness but also give you a clear understanding of how the law is evolving in India.