CLAT 2027 sits on 6 December 2026. That gives you a little under seven months. Legal reasoning on the Consortium paper has, year after year, leaned on one quiet rule: the passages are drawn from law that has actually shaped Indian public life. Landmark Supreme Court judgments are the bedrock of that pool. They are quoted in editorials, cited by High Courts, taught in NLU foundation courses, and — most importantly for you — they are the easiest way for paper-setters to test reading speed, ratio decidendi, and application to a fresh fact pattern.
This revision sheet is built for the aspirant who has done one full reading of the syllabus and now needs a high-density sweep. Twenty cases. The classics you cannot afford to forget, plus the 2023-2026 verdicts that have re-shaped the constitutional conversation. Read the table once. Then read the five deep-dives. Then attempt the MCQs.
Why Landmark Judgments Matter for CLAT Legal Reasoning
The CLAT Legal Reasoning section is not a memory test. The Consortium has been clear about that. But examiners draw their 450-word passages from real legal events, and a candidate who already knows the holding of Puttaswamy or the reasoning in the Electoral Bonds case reads those passages thirty seconds faster than one who is meeting the case for the first time. Those thirty seconds, across six passages, are the difference between a 95 and an 88 in this section.
Beyond reading speed, judgments give you the legal vocabulary — “basic structure”, “manifest arbitrariness”, “proportionality”, “deemed assent” — that lets you spot the principle a passage is testing. The General Knowledge section also leans on the same pool: a 2025-2026 verdict can become a current-affairs passage with a single rewrite.
The Top 20: A One-Glance Table
| Case Name | Year | Bench | Ratio | CLAT-relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | 1973 | 13 judges | Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure. | The single most-tested doctrine. Any passage on amendment power leads here. |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | 1978 | 7 judges | “Procedure established by law” under Article 21 must be just, fair and reasonable. Articles 14, 19 and 21 read together. | The golden triangle. Backbone of every personal-liberty passage. |
| Minerva Mills v. Union of India | 1980 | 5 judges | Limited amending power is itself a basic feature; harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. | Tests the limits of Article 368. |
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India | 1994 | 9 judges | President’s Rule under Article 356 is justiciable; secularism is part of the basic structure. | Federalism and Centre-State relations passages. |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan | 1997 | 3 judges | Guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace, treated as law until Parliament legislated. | Foundation for the 2013 POSH Act; gender-justice passages. |
| Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation | 1985 | 5 judges | Right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21. | Socio-economic rights and Article 21 expansion. |
| I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu | 2007 | 9 judges | Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are open to judicial review on basic-structure grounds. | Connects Kesavananda to the Ninth Schedule. |
| K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India | 2017 | 9 judges | Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 read with Part III. | Mother case for data protection, Aadhaar, and surveillance passages. |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India | 2018 | 5 judges | Section 377 IPC unconstitutional insofar as it criminalised consensual same-sex relations between adults. | Equality, dignity and the doctrine of progressive realisation. |
| Joseph Shine v. Union of India | 2018 | 5 judges | Section 497 IPC (adultery) struck down as it violated Articles 14, 15 and 21. | Gender equality and manifest arbitrariness. |
| Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala) | 2018 | 5 judges | Exclusion of women aged 10-50 from Sabarimala violated Articles 14, 15 and 25. | Religion versus equality; still under reference. |
| Shayara Bano v. Union of India | 2017 | 5 judges | Instant triple talaq unconstitutional; doctrine of manifest arbitrariness reaffirmed. | Personal law and Article 14. |
| Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India | 2020 | 3 judges | Indefinite suspension of internet services violates Article 19; proportionality required. | Free speech in the digital era. |
| In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution | 2023 | 5 judges | Upheld the abrogation of Article 370; Article 370 was a temporary provision and the President’s powers under it were validly exercised. | The defining federalism verdict of the decade. |
| Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India | 2023 | 5 judges | No fundamental right to marry; legal recognition of same-sex marriage is for Parliament. Directions issued to safeguard cohabiting same-sex couples. | Separation of powers and legislative competence. |
| Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds) | 2024 | 5 judges | Electoral Bonds Scheme 2018 struck down as violative of Article 19(1)(a); voters’ right to information on political funding upheld. | Free speech, elections, and transparency. |
| Sita Soren v. Union of India | 2024 | 7 judges | Legislators accepting bribes for votes or speeches enjoy no immunity under Articles 105 and 194. P.V. Narasimha Rao overruled. | Parliamentary privilege and anti-corruption. |
| State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh | 2024 | 7 judges | Sub-classification within Scheduled Castes for reservation is constitutionally permissible. | Reservation jurisprudence and Article 341. |
| State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu | 2025 | 2 judges | Governor cannot sit indefinitely on Bills; timelines read into Article 200; re-passed Bills deemed assented. | Governor-State conflict, federalism. |
| In Re: Article 142 Presidential Reference | 2025 | 5 judges | Article 142 cannot be used to fix deadlines on the President or Governors, nor to grant deemed assent. Boundaries of “complete justice” clarified. | Separation of powers and limits of judicial discretion. |
Five Most-Likely-Tested Cases: 100-Word Breakdowns
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Decided by a 7:6 majority of a thirteen-judge bench, this is the case every CLAT passage on amendment power orbits around. The Court held that Parliament’s power under Article 368 is wide but not absolute: it cannot damage or destroy the “basic structure” of the Constitution. The ratio is deliberately open-ended — supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, federalism, secularism and judicial review have all since been read into the basic structure. Expect a passage that tests whether a hypothetical amendment crosses this line. The doctrine is your default analytical frame.
2. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
A unanimous nine-judge bench held that privacy is a fundamental right traceable to Article 21 and the freedoms in Part III. The Court laid down a three-part proportionality test: legality, legitimate state aim, and proportionality between means and ends. This is the parent case for every data-protection, Aadhaar, surveillance, social-media regulation and reproductive-rights passage you will see in the coming years. If a passage involves the State collecting, sharing or using personal information, the proportionality test is almost certainly the analytical key the question is testing.
3. In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023)
A five-judge constitution bench unanimously upheld the August 2019 abrogation of Article 370. The Court held that Article 370 was always a temporary provision, that the Constituent Assembly’s dissolution did not freeze the President’s power under Article 370(3), and that Jammu and Kashmir does not enjoy internal sovereignty distinct from other States. The verdict directed the Election Commission to hold Assembly elections and statehood to be restored at the earliest. Expect comprehension passages on temporary versus permanent provisions, asymmetric federalism, and Presidential power under Article 370(3).
4. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India — Electoral Bonds (2024)
A five-judge bench unanimously struck down the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme. The Court held that voters’ right to information about political funding flows from Article 19(1)(a), and that anonymous corporate donations cannot be insulated from scrutiny on the ground of donor privacy. Amendments to the Companies Act, Income Tax Act and Representation of the People Act enabling the scheme were also invalidated. The State Bank of India was directed to disclose bond data to the Election Commission. The proportionality test from Puttaswamy was applied — a likely passage hook.
5. In Re: Article 142 Presidential Reference (2025)
A five-judge bench, deciding a Presidential Reference, held that Article 142 cannot be used to impose deadlines on the President or State Governors for deciding on Bills, nor to grant “deemed assent” to legislation. The Court acknowledged that narrow Article 142 remedies remain available where constitutional actors act mala fide, but firmly placed legislative timelines outside ordinary judicial discretion. Read alongside the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment, this verdict reframes the Centre-State-Judiciary triangle. Any 2026 passage on judicial overreach or “complete justice” almost certainly draws from this reasoning.
5-MCQ Block
Q1. The doctrine that Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution was laid down in:
(a) Golak Nath v. State of Punjab
(b) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
(c) Minerva Mills v. Union of India
(d) Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Q2. In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the right to privacy was located primarily in:
(a) Article 14 alone
(b) Article 19(1)(a) alone
(c) Article 21 read with the freedoms in Part III
(d) The Directive Principles of State Policy
Q3. The Electoral Bonds Scheme 2018 was struck down by the Supreme Court principally on the ground that it violated:
(a) Article 14
(b) Article 19(1)(a) — voters’ right to information
(c) Article 21 — donor privacy
(d) Article 324 — Election Commission’s powers
Q4. In the 2023 Article 370 verdict, the Supreme Court held that:
(a) Article 370 was a permanent provision
(b) Jammu and Kashmir enjoys internal sovereignty
(c) Article 370 was a temporary provision and the President’s power under Article 370(3) was validly exercised
(d) The abrogation was unconstitutional
Q5. The 2025 Presidential Reference on Article 142 clarified that the Supreme Court:
(a) Can fix binding deadlines on the President and Governors for assent to Bills
(b) Can grant deemed assent to any pending Bill
(c) Cannot use Article 142 to substitute the role of the President or Governors or to grant deemed assent
(d) Has unlimited discretion under Article 142
Answer Key
Q1. (b) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Q2. (c) Article 21 read with the freedoms in Part III
Q3. (b) Article 19(1)(a) — voters’ right to information
Q4. (c) Article 370 was a temporary provision and the President’s power under Article 370(3) was validly exercised
Q5. (c) Cannot use Article 142 to substitute the role of the President or Governors or to grant deemed assent
The Revision Protocol
This sheet is built for three passes, not one.
Pass 1 — Familiarity (Day 1, 45 minutes). Read the table once, slowly. Mark four cases you have never heard of. Read the five deep-dives. Do not yet attempt the MCQs.
Pass 2 — Active recall (Day 4, 30 minutes). Cover the “Ratio” column with your palm. For each case, say the ratio aloud. Uncover and check. Attempt the five MCQs without referring to the table. Target: 4/5.
Pass 3 — Application (Day 10, 60 minutes). Pick any three of the twenty cases. Find a recent newspaper editorial or explainer on each (PIB, The Hindu, Indian Express op-ed pages). Read the editorial as if it were a CLAT passage and frame two principle-application questions on it. This is exactly how Consortium passages are built.
Cycle the sheet every two weeks until December. By the third cycle, the ratios will feel reflexive — and reflexive recall is what wins this section.
One Last Word
You are not asked to remember paragraph numbers. You are asked to recognise a principle when it walks past you in fresh clothing. That is what landmark judgments train. Treat this sheet as a working document — annotate it, add cases as fresh ones come down through 2026, and revisit it in the final week before the paper.
If you would like a structured weekly current-legal-affairs feed, mock-test access, and one-on-one mentor calls in the run-up to CLAT 2027, the CLAT Gurukul team is on call. Helpline: 7033005444. Real students. Real journeys. We will see you on the other side of 6 December 2026.
