Landmark Judgements in Constitutional Law for CLAT PG 2027 - Lecture 01

Constitutional Law forms the foundation of the CLAT PG syllabus, and landmark Supreme Court judgements are among the most frequently tested topics. Understanding these cases helps you grasp key constitutional principles, interpret important Articles, and answer legal reasoning questions with greater accuracy in the exam.

These Lecture 1 note brings together the most important landmark judgements for CLAT PG 2027. From the Kesavananda Bharati case and Article 12 to the Doctrine of Eclipse, reservation, Article 21, freedom of speech, DPSPs, and environmental law, you will find concise explanations for quick revision and effective exam preparation.

List of Landmark Judgements in Constitutional Law

Explore the landmark Constitutional Law judgments that have shaped the interpretation of the Indian Constitution, Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles, judicial review, and key constitutional doctrines.

1. Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala — AIR 1973 SC 1461

Held: Basic Structure Doctrine laid down — it is a very important part of the Indian Constitution. 

Preamble was earlier held "not a part" of the Constitution (In Re Berubari), but this case finally held the Preamble IS a part of the Constitution and gives insight into the Constitution. Parliament had reacted to the Golaknath judgment by enacting the 24th Amendment Act.

2. Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India (1984) — AIR 1984 SC 1420

 Issue: Whether admission to medical colleges/higher institutions in another state can be restricted on domicile grounds.
Held: Supreme Court discarded the idea of "state domicile." Citizenship of India means citizenship of the whole country — free movement, free residence, free profession/business (Article 19). Article 5 recognizes only one domicile — domicile in the territory of India.

3. Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs. Mohan Lal (1967) — AIR 1967 SC 1857
Issue: Whether the Electricity Board falls under "State" under Article 12.
Held: The term "other authorities" is broad enough to embrace any authority (a) created under Indian legislation, (b) operating within Indian territory, (c) supervised by the Indian Government. If these are satisfied, it's a "State."

4. Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib (1981) — AIR 1981 SC 487
Issue: Test to determine if a body is an "instrumentality of the Government" under Article 12.
Held (tests laid down):

• Entire share capital owned by government → strong indication of state instrumentality

• Financial aid/assistance covering expenses → indicates governmental character

• Monopoly status granted/protected by the state

• Deep and pervasive state control

• Functions closely connected to governmental/public functions

5. Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra (2002) — AIR 2002 SC 1771
Issue: Matrimonial dispute; woman withdrew consent for mutual divorce.
Held: Supreme Court can revisit its own final decisions to correct manifest errors through a Curative Petition (post dismissal of review petition), since judges are also human and can err.

6. Bikaji vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955) — AIR 1955 SC 781 (Bhikaji Narain Dhakras case)
Concept: Doctrine of Eclipse (addressed under Article 13(1)).
Held: A law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights does not become automatically null and void — it remains in a state of "eclipse" (overshadowed by Fundamental Rights), like a solar/lunar eclipse.

7. Ajay/PW note — RMDC vs. Union of India (1957) — AIR 1957 SC 628
Held: If a legislature enacts a law wholly in excess of its power, it is entirely void and must be ignored. But if the law falls partly within its jurisdiction and partly outside, it is void only to the extent of excess — courts must apply a severability test based on legislative intent to determine if valid and invalid portions are separable.

8. Basheshar Nath vs. IT Commissioner (1959) — AIR 1959 SC 149
Held: Under Article 14 (equality), neither an individual nor the State can breach state obligations. Fundamental Rights cannot be waived by citizens — they are immune from legislative interference, unlike statutory rights.

9. E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) — AIR 1974 SC 555
Held: Equality is a dynamic concept, not a straitjacket formula. Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness — where arbitrariness exists, inequality exists, and any arbitrary state action violates Article 14.

10. E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) — AIR 2005 SC 162
Held: Scope of Article 15(4) is wider than Article 16(4) — 15(4) covers 8 types of positive action programs (beyond just reservation). Reservation of posts must be within reasonable limits — maximum 50% ceiling (as per Indira Sawhney/Mandal case).

11. Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992) — AIR 1993 SC 477
Held: Reservation permissible but capped at 50%, exceedable only with quantifiable data. Introduced the "creamy layer" concept for OBCs — those above a certain income are excluded from reservation benefits.

12. Balaji vs. State of Mysore (1963) — AIR 1963 SC 649
Held: Reservation cannot be based solely on caste; other backwardness factors must be tested. Reservation under Article 15(4) must be reasonable and must not defeat/nullify the main facet of equality.

13. PUCL vs. Union of India (2003) — AIR 2003 SC 2363
Held: Blanket ban under Section 33-B of the Representation of People's Act (restricting disclosure of candidate information) struck down. Citizens have a Right to Information about election candidates — flows from Freedom of Speech and Expression (Art. 19(1)(a)). Marked the beginning of RTI movement, later leading to the RTI Act.

14. Bennett Coleman & Co. vs. Union of India (1973) — AIR 1973 SC 106
Held: Government policy restricting newsprint import/circulation was unconstitutional — violated Freedom of the Press under Article 19(1)(a). Government cannot control growth/circulation of newspapers under the guise of regulating distribution.

15. Hamdard Dawakhana vs. Union of India (1960) — AIR 1960 SC 554
Held: Advertisement is a form of speech, but its nature/object must be examined. Advertisements promoting drugs/commodities not in public interest cannot be regarded as propagating an idea and are not protected as free speech.

16. Himmat Lal vs. Police Commissioner (1973) — AIR 1973 SC 87
Held: Conferring uncontrolled discretion on an administrative officer to regulate freedom of assembly is invalid.

17. Kharak Singh vs. State of UP (1963) — AIR 1963 SC 1295
Held: Police surveillance (domiciliary visits) falls within scope of Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement). Minority view held such surveillance violates personal liberty. (Later overruled/modified in Govind vs. State of MP — surveillance restricted only to persons with reasonable material suggesting a determination to lead a life of crime.)

18. Sodan Singh vs. NDMC (1989) — AIR 1989 SC 1988 / (1989) 4 SCC 155
Held: Hawkers have a right to conduct trade on pavements/streets, but subject to general convenience of the public — cannot completely obstruct public movement.

19. State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) — AIR 1961 SC 1808
Held: Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination) is not violated when an accused is directed to give specimen handwriting, signature, palm/finger impressions — these don't amount to "self-incrimination" as they aren't based on personal knowledge/confession.

20. A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950) — AIR 1950 SC 27
Issue: "Procedure established by law" vs. "Due process of law"; validity of Section 14 of Preventive Detention Act.
Held: Supreme Court took a narrow/restrictive approach, upholding the Act, deferring strictly to the procedure laid down by law. (Later termed a "bad law" and overruled in later cases like Maneka Gandhi.)

21. Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) — AIR 1980 SC 898
Held: Death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder under Section 302 IPC is not unreasonable, especially in "rarest of rare" cases.

22. Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) — AIR 1997 SC 3011
Facts: Bhanwari Devi case — sexual assault while preventing child marriage.
Held: Supreme Court laid down Vishaka Guidelines for prevention of sexual harassment at workplace, followed until the POSH Act, 2013 was enacted.

23. P. Rathinam vs. Union of India (1994) — AIR 1994 SC 1844 (Common Cause reference in transcript overlaps with this line of cases)
Held (initial/overruled view): Article 21 (Right to Life) includes "right not to live." (This view was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur's case.)

24. Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab (1996) — AIR 1996 SC 946
Held: Right to Life under Article 21 means right to a quality/dignified life, not a right to die. Overruled P. Rathinam.

25. Unnikrishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) — AIR 1993 SC 2178
Held: Right to Education is an integral part of Right to Life under Article 21, linked with DPSP (Articles 41, 45, 46). Led to insertion of Article 21-A (free education for children aged 6–14).

26. S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) — AIR 1994 SC 1918
Held: Secularism is a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The country/state has no religion of its own.

27. Aruna Roy vs. Union of India (2002) — AIR 2002 SC 3176
Issue: PIL challenging NCERT curriculum as anti-secular for including religious content.
Held: Teaching about religion in an educational, cultural context (not promoting a single religion) is not anti-secular.

28. TMA Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) — AIR 2003 SC 355 / (2002) 8 SCC 481
Issue: Determination of religious/linguistic minority status under Article 30.
Held: Minority institutions can establish and administer institutions — admit students, fix reasonable fee structure, form governing bodies, appoint staff — to protect their religious/cultural/linguistic minority interests.

29. Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India (1984) — AIR 1984 SC 802
Facts: Letter petition to Justice P.N. Bhagwati for release of bonded labourers.
Held: Everyone has the right to live with dignity under Article 21. Bonded labour violates this right; the State has an obligation to end such practices; bonded labourers also have a right to health and education.

30. State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) — AIR 1951 SC 226 

 Held: Fundamental Rights are enforceable, but DPSPs are not enforceable. No law can be made prioritizing DPSP over Fundamental Rights — FRs are always supreme.

31. Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980) — AIR 1980 SC 1789
Held: Fundamental Rights are not ends in themselves — they are "means to an end," the end being specified in the DPSPs (holistic national development, social/scientific progress, etc.).

32. M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India — Oleum Gas Leak Case (1987) — AIR 1987 SC 1086
Held: Supreme Court rejected the old strict liability doctrine (from Rylands vs. Fletcher) as inadequate for mass-scale industrial disasters, and introduced the new doctrine of Absolute Liability — industries handling hazardous substances are absolutely liable for any harm caused, with no exceptions. Led to the creation of the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

Why These Judgements Matter for CLAT PG 2027

These are not just old cases. Examiners repeat questions on these landmark judgements for CLAT PG every year because they build the base of Indian constitutional law. Knowing the bench, the facts, and the final ratio of each case will help you answer tricky exam questions with confidence.

This lecture covered many landmark judgements for CLAT PG students, from the Basic Structure Doctrine to environmental law. Revise this list regularly, make short notes, and attempt mock tests.