If you are a CLAT 2027 aspirant sitting down to plan your Legal Awareness preparation today, the single biggest question is this: which judgments actually matter? The Consortium’s pattern over the last four cycles is unambiguous — comprehension passages are increasingly built around recent Supreme Court rulings on constitutional law, fundamental rights, and federalism. You do not need to memorise hundreds of cases. You need to know the right twenty cold — the bench, the ratio, the article in play, and the one line of holding that lets you eliminate three options in twelve seconds. This guide gives you exactly that, curated from the 2023–2025 docket of the Supreme Court of India.
How to read this list (and why these 20)
Every judgment below has been picked on three filters: (a) it sits at the intersection of constitutional principle and contemporary public discourse, (b) it has produced a clear, quotable holding that a comprehension passage can frame a question around, and (c) it has already been picked up by leading legal databases — Supreme Court Observer, SCC Online, LiveLaw — as defining rulings of the term. The Consortium’s Legal Awareness section does not test rote case names; it tests whether you can read a 450-word passage about a real judgment and answer principle-based questions. So treat each entry as a mini-passage in waiting.
Constitutional law & federalism
1. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024 INSC 113) — Electoral Bonds. Decided 15 February 2024 by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud. The Court unanimously struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme of 2018 as violative of Article 19(1)(a) — the voter’s right to information about political funding. Key takeaway: anonymity in political donations cannot be justified as a proportionate restriction on the right to know. Expect passages on proportionality, Article 19, and free and fair elections.
2. In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023 INSC 1058). Delivered 11 December 2023 by a five-judge bench. Article 370 was held to be a temporary provision; its abrogation through the 2019 Presidential Orders was upheld unanimously. Justice Kaul’s concurring opinion called for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for J&K. Examiners love the asymmetric federalism angle — revise the difference between Articles 370 and 371.
3. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024 INSC 562) — Sub-classification within SCs. A 6:1 verdict by a seven-judge bench on 1 August 2024 overruled E.V. Chinnaiah (2004) and held that states may sub-classify Scheduled Castes for more nuanced reservation, provided they show quantifiable data of inadequate representation. Justice Bela Trivedi dissented. Cross-link this with Article 341 and the “creamy layer” debate.
4. Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (2024) — Mineral royalty. A nine-judge bench held by 8:1 that royalty on minerals is not a tax, and that states have legislative competence to tax mineral rights under Entry 50 of List II. A landmark on Union–State fiscal federalism — pair it with the industrial alcohol nine-judge ruling for a complete federalism revision arc.
5. State of U.P. v. Lalta Prasad Vaish (2024) — Industrial alcohol. A nine-judge bench, by 8:1, held that “intoxicating liquor” under Entry 8 of List II includes industrial alcohol, restoring substantial regulatory power to states. A direct override of the seven-judge Synthetics & Chemicals (1990) reading.
Fundamental rights & identity
6. Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023 INSC 920) — Marriage equality. On 17 October 2023, a five-judge bench unanimously held there is no fundamental right to marry, declined to read same-sex marriage into the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and asked the Union to constitute a high-powered committee to address entitlements of queer couples. Likely passage angles: separation of powers, judicial restraint, and Articles 14, 15, 19, 21.
7. Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal (2024) — Minority status. By a 4:3 majority on 8 November 2024, a seven-judge bench overruled Azeez Basha (1967) and laid down a fresh test: an institution does not lose minority character merely because it is created by statute or is not administered by the minority community. The question of AMU’s actual status was remitted to a regular bench. Article 30(1) is the anchor.
8. In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (2024 INSC 866) — Bulldozer guidelines. On 13 November 2024, the Court held that demolishing the property of an accused as a punitive measure is unconstitutional — it violates the rule of law, separation of powers, and Articles 14 and 21. Detailed pan-India guidelines were issued: 15-day prior notice, video-recorded demolition, and personal liability of officers in contempt for breach.
9. Section 6A, Citizenship Act — In Re: Section 6A (2024). A five-judge bench on 17 October 2024 upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A by 4:1, preserving the Assam Accord cut-off of 25 March 1971. Justice J.B. Pardiwala dissented. Revise alongside the NRC debate and Article 11.
10. Sita Soren v. Union of India (2024) — Legislative immunity. A seven-judge bench unanimously overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998) and held that legislators accepting bribes for votes or speeches in the House are not immune from criminal prosecution under Articles 105(2) and 194(2). A short, clean holding that travels well into comprehension formats.
Criminal law & due process
11. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024). The Court extended the Pankaj Bansal rule to UAPA arrests: grounds of arrest must be supplied in writing, and failure renders the arrest illegal. A workhorse case for Article 22 passages.
12. Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024). “Bail is the rule, jail is the exception” was reasserted for PMLA cases. Prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21. Expect this to anchor passages on the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA.
13. Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2024) — POCSO & CSAM. The Court held that mere viewing, downloading, or storage of child sexual abuse material is an offence under Section 15 POCSO read with Section 67B IT Act, and directed Parliament to replace “child pornography” with “Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material” (CSEAM) in statute.
14. Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau (2024). The Court struck down bail conditions requiring an accused to share live Google Maps location, holding they violate the right to privacy under Puttaswamy — a neat application of the 2017 nine-judge ruling.
15. Perumal Raja v. State (2024) — Scope of Section 27 Evidence Act. Custody under Section 27 includes any form of police control or surveillance, not only formal arrest. A high-utility ruling for evidence-law passages.
Judicial process, environment & governance
16. High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. (2024). A five-judge Constitution Bench overruled the 2018 Asian Resurfacing dictum that stay orders automatically vacate after six months. Constitutional courts cannot fix rigid timelines under Article 142 for trial-court disposal.
17. M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024) — Right against climate change. The Court recognised a fundamental right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, traceable to Articles 14 and 21. A landmark for environmental passages and Directive Principles linkage (Article 48A).
18. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023). A five-judge bench held that the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown using Article 142, and can waive the six-month cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) Hindu Marriage Act. Useful for family-law and Article 142 passages.
19. Anjum Kadari v. Union of India (2024) — U.P. Madarsa Act. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the U.P. Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, reversing the Allahabad High Court. Held that the Act does not violate the basic structure or principles of secularism, save for provisions on higher education that clash with the UGC Act.
20. Gene Campaign v. Union of India (2024) — GM Mustard. A split verdict in which the Court directed the Union to formulate a National Policy on GM crops through public consultation, reiterating the precautionary principle and intergenerational equity. Pair with Article 21’s expanded reading on environment.
How to revise these 20 efficiently (the 30-day plan)
Spread the list across four weeks. Week 1: Constitutional law & federalism (cases 1–5) — build a one-pager per case with bench composition, ratio, and the dissent. Week 2: Fundamental rights & identity (6–10). Week 3: Criminal law & due process (11–15). Week 4: Judicial process, environment & governance (16–20) plus a mixed revision drill. For each case, write a 60-word summary in your own words — this is the closest mental model to a real CLAT passage. If you have already started on our CLAT 2027 strategy roadmap, slot this list into the Legal Awareness block. For passage-style practice tuned to the Consortium’s pattern, return daily to our Daily Practice Sheets; for current-affairs anchoring around each judgment, our Daily Newspaper briefs tag every relevant story to the underlying case.
Five practice questions (Legal Reasoning — passage-style)
Read the principle, apply it to the facts, and pick the best answer. Answers and reasoning follow each question.
Q1. Principle: A scheme that anonymises political funding disproportionately restricts a voter’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a) and cannot be saved on the ground of donor privacy alone. Facts: Parliament enacts a new “Transparent Bonds” scheme allowing donations up to ₹10 lakh per donor anonymously, citing privacy. Is the scheme constitutional?
(a) Yes — privacy under Puttaswamy overrides Article 19(1)(a).
(b) Yes — donations below ₹10 lakh are de minimis.
(c) No — the anonymity feature fails the proportionality test on voter information.
(d) No — only the Election Commission can frame such schemes.
Answer: (c). The ratio in ADR v. Union of India (2024) is that proportionality, not the cap, is the governing test; donor privacy is a legitimate aim but not the least restrictive means.
Q2. Principle: States may sub-classify Scheduled Castes for reservation, provided the classification is backed by quantifiable data of inadequate representation. Facts: State X sub-classifies its SC list into two groups based purely on the political strength of one community, without socio-economic data. Group A is given 75% of the SC quota. Is the action valid?
(a) Yes — sub-classification is permitted after Davinder Singh.
(b) No — the classification lacks quantifiable data of inadequate representation.
(c) Yes — the President has consented under Article 341.
(d) No — sub-classification is barred by E.V. Chinnaiah.
Answer: (b). Sub-classification is permissible, but the data threshold is mandatory.
Q3. Principle: Demolition of property of an accused, before adjudication of guilt, violates the rule of law and Articles 14 and 21; due notice of at least 15 days and a personal hearing are mandatory. Facts: Municipality M demolishes Z’s shop within 24 hours of his arrest in a riot case, citing an unauthorised extension built five years ago. Is the demolition lawful?
(a) Yes — the extension was unauthorised.
(b) Yes — municipal law overrides the SC guidelines.
(c) No — the procedure prescribed in In Re: Demolition of Structures was not followed.
(d) No — only the High Court can sanction demolitions.
Answer: (c). The procedural safeguards are mandatory; non-compliance amounts to contempt.
Q4. Principle: A legislator accepting illegal gratification for casting a vote or making a speech in the House is not protected by parliamentary privilege under Article 105(2) or 194(2). Facts: MLA P accepts ₹50 lakh to vote against a no-confidence motion. He claims immunity. Decide.
(a) Immunity applies — the vote was inside the House.
(b) Immunity applies — only the Speaker can act.
(c) No immunity — bribery is not “in respect of” any vote within the protected scope.
(d) Immunity applies only if he eventually voted as agreed.
Answer: (c). The seven-judge bench in Sita Soren (2024) overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao.
Q5. Principle: Climate change adversely affecting health, equality, and life forms part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21. Facts: A state government clears a 400 MW thermal plant in a notified eco-sensitive zone without an environmental impact assessment. Citizen R challenges it. Pick the strongest ground.
(a) Violation of Article 19(1)(g).
(b) Violation of Article 32 alone.
(c) Violation of Articles 14 and 21 read with the right against the adverse effects of climate change.
(d) Violation of Article 48A only.
Answer: (c). The Court in M.K. Ranjitsinh (2024) anchored the climate right in Articles 14 and 21, which are justiciable, while 48A is a directive principle.
FAQ
Q. How many Supreme Court judgments should a CLAT 2027 aspirant actually memorise?
You need conceptual command over roughly 20–25 landmark rulings from the previous three years. Memorising 100 case names without understanding the ratio is far weaker than knowing 20 in depth — the Consortium tests application, not recall.
Q. Will judgments from 2023 still appear in CLAT 2027?
Yes. Article 370 (December 2023), Supriyo (October 2023), and Shilpa Sailesh (May 2023) are foundational to subsequent jurisprudence and remain fair game, especially in passages that test understanding of constitutional interpretation.
Q. Where should I read primary sources without getting overwhelmed?
Stick to two sources for revision: Supreme Court Observer’s judgment summaries for the ratio in plain English, and the SCC Online or LiveLaw report for the operative paragraphs. Avoid full judgment PDFs for first reading — revisit only the operative portion.
Q. How does the Consortium frame questions on these judgments?
Through principle-fact passages. You will be given a 350–450 word extract setting out the principle (often paraphrasing the holding), followed by 4–6 fact-pattern questions. The skill being tested is application of the principle to novel facts, not identification of the case.
Q. Should I track dissents?
Track dissents only in 4–5 cases where the dissent is itself examinable — Davinder Singh (Trivedi J.), AMU (Surya Kant J.), Section 6A (Pardiwala J.). For the rest, the majority ratio is enough.
