CLAT PG 2027 Landmark Cases 02 Constitutional Law Landmark Judgements

Constitutional Law is one of the most important subjects in CLAT PG 2027, and landmark Supreme Court judgments form the foundation of many constitutional principles tested in the examination. Rather than memorising case names alone, candidates should understand the facts, constitutional issues, legal reasoning, and principles established by these decisions. 

A clear understanding of these landmark cases helps in answering passage-based, conceptual, and analytical questions effectively. 

Landmark Judgments

Landmark judgments play an important role in understanding Constitutional Law and are frequently tested in CLAT PG. These Supreme Court decisions explain how key constitutional provisions have been interpreted over time and continue to influence India's legal system. 

From judicial appointments and legislative powers to parliamentary privileges, judicial review, and fundamental rights, these cases provide the legal principles every CLAT PG aspirant should know before the exam.

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

Heard by a 9-judge bench, this case addressed the President's power under Article 356 to dismiss State Governments. The Court held that this power is not absolute and is subject to judicial review, making arbitrary dismissals challengeable. 

Dismissals can be challenged on grounds of mala fide intention, irrelevant material, or political motivation. The judgment affirmed that Federalism and Secularism are essential, unalterable parts of the Basic Structure Doctrine. It also clarified that State Governments are not subordinate to the Centre, possessing their own domain and sovereign authority.

Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)

This case upheld the constitutional validity of the Anti-defection Law, introduced by the 52nd Amendment Act of 1985 as the Tenth Schedule (Memory Tip: Remember 52nd Amendment, 1985, Tenth Schedule, Anti-defection Law as a unit).

The Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker's order disqualifying a legislator for defection is subject to judicial review. While Paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule attempted to exclude judicial jurisdiction, a 5-judge bench declared it unconstitutional, affirming that Judicial Review is part of the Basic Structure Doctrine. Review is limited to grounds like mala fide, perversity, or violation of constitutional mandate.

Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017)

This case examined the Ordinance-making power of the President (Article 123) and Governor (Article 213). The Supreme Court addressed the misuse or abuse of this power, especially when ordinances were not subsequently laid before the legislature. 

While an ordinance does not require legislative approval for its initial validity, its non-presentation before the legislature upon its next session is a serious concern. The Court emphasised that there must be no abuse of this power.

P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998)

This case involved Parliamentary Privileges under Article 105 concerning bribery. Initially, a Division Bench held that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) enjoyed constitutional immunity under Article 105(2) and Article 194(2), protecting them from prosecution for accepting bribes to vote or speak in the House. 

However, a later 7-judge bench in 2024 overruled this decision, clarifying that accepting bribes for parliamentary work is NOT protected under parliamentary privilege.

Appointment of Judges: The Three Judges Cases

This series of cases clarified the appointment process for judges, balancing the powers of the Executive and Judiciary.

A. First Judges Case: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)

The core issue was executive versus judicial power in appointments. The Court initially held that the Executive had primary power and that "consultation" in Articles 124 and 217 (for judicial appointments) did NOT mean concurrence. The President could consult the Chief Justice, but the final decision rested with the Executive. The case also saw the birth of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), expanding locus standi.

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

A 9-judge bench overturned S.P. Gupta, establishing the primacy of the Chief Justice of India's (CJI) opinion in judicial appointments. It ruled that "consultation" in this context means concurrence, making the President bound by the CJI's opinion. 

This formalised the Collegium system, requiring the CJI to form an opinion in consultation with two other senior-most judges of the Supreme Court for recommendations. The judgment also gave primacy to the CJI for the transfer of judges. (Memory Tip: This "tug of war" between Judiciary and Executive shaped the Collegium system).

C. Third Judges Case: In Re: Special Reference (1999)

This case, through a Presidential reference under Article 143, clarified the Collegium system. For appointments to the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India must consult with four senior-most puisne judges, expanding the Collegium to a five-member group. For High Court appointments, the Collegium consists of the CJI and two senior-most judges. 

The Court stipulated that if two or more Collegium members object, the CJI cannot proceed with that recommendation, emphasising an institutional decision. The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, attempted to replace the Collegium with the NJAC, but the Supreme Court declared the NJAC unconstitutional and void in 2015 (Fourth Judges Case), reinstating the Collegium system.

Nature of Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136: Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development (2002)

The Supreme Court clarified that the power under Article 136 (SLP) is discretionary, not an inherent right to appeal. This power of widest amplitude is exercised to satisfy the demands of justice and cannot be equated with a fundamental right. It is an exceptional power to be used sparingly and judiciously, typically for adequate and actual legal questions. Judges may impose costs if an SLP is filed to waste the court's time.

Law Declared by Supreme Court to be Binding on All Courts: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sun Engineering Works (1993)

This case addressed Article 141 of the Constitution, embodying the Doctrine of Stare Decisis, which refers to the binding capacity of Supreme Court decisions. The Court held that only the ratio decidendi (the reason for the decision) is binding. The following are NOT binding:

• Findings of fact

• Discussions on evidence

• Court's opinions

• Casual remarks

Only the real, actual answer to the question of law is binding.

B.R. Kapoor v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001)

This case concerned the disqualification of a candidate due to conviction in offenses. The Supreme Court found it unreasonable that a non-legislator minister might not meet the same qualification standards as a legislator minister. 

The qualification to hold office can be challenged through a proceeding for a writ of Quo Warranto. If an appointment contradicts any constitutional provision, it can be quashed by the court.

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

This case, highly important in Administrative Law, addressed whether Tribunals (under Articles 323A and 323B) could test the validity of constitutional provisions. A seven-judge bench held that the power of judicial review under Article 226 (High Courts) and Article 32 (Supreme Court) is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. 

Tribunals are generally not powerful enough to deal with constitutional law questions. While judicial review is basic, litigants must first approach the Administrative Tribunal before invoking the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction.

Godfrey Philips India Limited v. State of U.P. (2005)

This case highlighted the Principle of Harmonious Interpretation. It acknowledged that conflicts or overlaps between legislative entries in the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists can arise. 

The Supreme Court stated that courts must reasonably and practically reconcile conflicting interests and avoid overlapping between entries. The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction is applied to resolve such legislative conflicts.

Javerybhai v. State of Bombay (1954)

This case dealt with repugnancy between Central and State laws on subjects in the Concurrent List. When the Bombay Legislature enacted a law (Bombay Act, 1947) that enhanced punishments beyond those stipulated by the Central Legislature's Essential Supplies Act, 1946, a conflict arose. 

The Supreme Court held that under the proviso to Article 254(2), the State law becomes void if it is overarching the power of the Central law. Parliament can even repeal the State law entirely under this proviso.

State of Madras v. Nataraja Mudaliar (1969)

This case discussed exceptions to freedom of trade and commerce. Article 301 protects both inter-state trade (between states) and intra-state trade (within a state). 

Under Article 302, Parliament can impose restrictions on both. Parliament can make laws for positive discrimination by giving preference to states affected by emergencies, such as scarcity of goods. This concept of "preference to one state over another" is also found in Article 303 and draws influence from the Australian Constitution.

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)

The Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to mandate that candidates file an affidavit detailing information about themselves. This ensures full and correct disclosure of information, including criminal antecedents. The Court declared the "right to know" as an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression, crucial for informed citizen choices in elections.

Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

This landmark case challenged sections of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, based on the Basic Structure Doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati. The Court held that the President's proclamation of emergency under Article 352 is subject to judicial review. If the President's actions are driven by mala fide intention, violate constitutional principles, or constitute an abuse of power, they can be questioned in court.

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

This case addressed whether Fundamental Rights could be abridged or taken away by Parliament. The Court overruled its previous judgments in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh. It held that Fundamental Rights are non-amendable in a manner that removes their essential essence. Parliament cannot remove the core importance or inherent essence of Fundamental Rights, emphasising their constitutional significance.