Landmark Judgement Questions For CLAT PG 2022

In CLAT Exam, understanding various concepts of law plays a crucial role.

You should be aware of the impact of such significant Landmark Judgments on our lives, as well as the rationale behind them.

How to identify important recent judgments for CLAT PG 2022?

Thousands of judgments are filed each year. There is no hard-and-fast rule that previous year judgments could not be asked.

In such a scenario, we should be able to identify the essential judgments to read from an exam perspective 
Here are some tips on How to identify important recent judgments for CLAT PG 2022?

• Not every recent judgment is important

You should not mug up all the recent judgments. Realization and identification of figuring out what not to study is also equally important

• Benches of the judgments

Generally, constitution bench judgments of 3 or more bench judgments are also important. Single or two bench judgments are rarely more significant. There are, however, certain exceptions.

Recent Judgements related to important subjects as mentioned in the detailed CLAT PG syllabus are more significant because they are directly connected to the syllabus.
For instance, constitutional law, family law, and criminal law, etc

Topics like arbitration law, CPC is not essentially part of the syllabus, thus judgments related to these topics are unlikely to appear in the CLAT PG exam.

• Take help from learned mentors, friends, etc to save your time.

List of Landmark Judgements for CLAT PG 2022

These Hon’ble Supreme Court judgements are very important to have a better understanding of the Constitution of our country.

• Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum(1985 )

Significance: Extended Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code to provide maintenance to a divorced Muslim woman.

• C. Mehta v Union of India (1986)

Significance: Laid down the principle of absolute liability.

• Mohini Jain v State of Karnataka (1992)

Significance: Laid down that right to education is an integral part of the right to life.

• Indira Sawhney v Union of India (1992)

Significance: Upheld the implementation of the recommendations of the Mandal Commission Report. It defined the “creamy layer” and mentioned that reservations could not exceed 50% of the total available seats.

• R. Bommai v Union of India (1994)

Significance: Laid down guidelines to prevent misuse of Article 356 (related to President’s rule) of the Constitution.

• Rajgopal v State of Tamil Nadu (1994)

Significance: Laid down that the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It mentioned that the right to privacy is a ‘right to be let alone’.

Check out: CLAT PG 2022

Check out: How to Prepare for CLAT PG 2022?

• Sarla Mudgal v Union of India (1995)

Significance:  Laid down the principles against the practice of solemnizing second marriage by conversion to Islam, with first marriage not being dissolved. It highlighted the need for a uniform civil code.

• Vishakha v State of Rajasthan (1997)

Significance: Laid down the basic definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace and formulated the Vishakha guidelines to deal with such harassment.

• Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh (1997)

Significance: Laid down that government land, tribal land, and forest land in scheduled areas could not be leased to non-tribals or private companies for mining or industrial operations.

• Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000)

Significance: Laid down that right to life is also available to non-citizens of India who visit India for tourism or otherwise.

• A. Inamdar v State of Maharashtra (2005)

Significance: The Supreme Court stated that “neither the policy of reservation can be enforced by the state nor any quota of admissions is carved out in private educational institutions”.

• Om Prakash v Dil Bahar (2005)

Significance: Held that a rape accused could be convicted on the sole evidence of the victim, even if medical evidence did not prove rape.

• Trimex International Ltd v Vedanta Aluminium Ltd (2010)

Significance: Held that once a contract is concluded orally or in writing, the mere fact that a formal contract has not been prepared by the parties doesn’t affect either the acceptance of the contract so entered into or implementation thereof.

Check out: Which Law School to Choose for PG Courses This Year

• Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union of India (2011)

Significance: Issued guidelines for allowing passive euthanasia.  

• Lily Thomas v Union of India (2013)

Significance: Ruled that any Member of Parliament, Member of the Legislative Assembly or Member of a Legislative Council, convicted of a crime with more than two-year sentence will be disqualified as an elected representative on the date of conviction.

• People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2013)

Significance: Directed the Election commission to introduce ‘None of the above’ options on EVMs and ballot papers so that people could choose to register a negative vote too in the election.

• Supreme Court Advocates on Record v Union of India (2015)

Significance: Struck down National Judicial Appointment Commission Act and 99th Constitutional Amendment as unconstitutional and void.

• NALSA V. Union of India

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India affirmed the constitutional rights and freedom of the transgender and recognized them as the third gender.

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) which violated freedom of speech and expression, declaring it to be unconstitutional.

Check out: CLAT PG vs CLAT UG

Questions based on Landmark Judgement for CLAT

In which landmark case the Supreme Court held that the Second marriage of Hindu man is invalid even if he converts to Islam before marriage?
a. Daniel Latiffi vs. Union of India
b. Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India
c. Roopa Hurrah vs. Ashok Hurrah.
d. Ramchandra Saraswati vs. Neena Bajpai

In which landmark case the Supreme Court of India held that held that the power of judicial review vested in the High court under Art.226 and right to move the Supreme Court under Art.32 is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution?
a. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India 
b. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan,
c. Keshavnanada Bharti vs. Union of India
d. Sheela Barse v. Union of India
Ans. Option A

In which Landmark case Fundamental Rights were considered as Inviolable part of the Indian Constitution?
a. Golak Nath vs. the State of Punjab 
b. Keshavnanada Bharti vs. Union of India
c. S.R Bommai V. Union of India
d. Prem Singh v. State of Haryana

Ans. Option A

In which Landmark legal case the Supreme Court held that Parliament has the right to amend the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution?
a. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
b. Minera Mills v. Union of India
c. Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab
d. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India

Ans. Option D

Check out: CLAT Eligibility Criteria 2022

Check out:  CLAT PG Eligibility Criteria

In which landmark legal case it was held that preamble is not a part of the Indian Constitution?
a. Berubari Union(I), Re
b. Keshavnanada Bharti v. State of Kerala
c. S.R Bommai v. Union of India
d. T.M.A Pai v. Union of India

Ans. Option A

The principle of ubi jus ibi remedium was recognised in
a. Allen v flood
b. Cults v Chumley
c. Alka v Union of India
d. Ashby v White

Which of the following case decided by the Supreme Court is related to ‘mental cruelty’?
a. Rooplal v Kartaro
b. Sayal v Sarla
c. Dastane v Dastane
d. None of the above

Muhammad Afzal v Ghulam Kasim (1903) ILR 843 is a leading case on which of the following?
a. Doctrine of election
b. Doctrine of holding over
c. Rule against perpetuity
d. None of the above

S.R. Bommai v Union of India, JT 1994 (2) SC 215 is related to
a. President Rule in State under Article 356
b. National Emergency under Article 352
c. Financial Emergency
d. None of the above

The NJAC Act was declared unconstitutional in
a. Sakal Chand v Union of India
b. S P Gupta v Union of India
c. SC Adv on Record Association v Union of India
d. In re Presidential reference of 1998

The case relating to Parliamentary Privileges is
a. Keshav Singh v Speaker of The UP Assembly
b. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India
c. Minerva Mills v Union of India
d. A K Gopalan v Union of India

The case of UnniKrishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh deals with which of the following rights?
a. Right to Education
b. Right to go abroad
c. Right to Privacy
d. None of the above

Check out: Best Books for CLAT PG 2022

The case of State of Bihar v Kameshwar Singh is related with which of the following doctrines?
a. Doctrine of Eclipse
b. Doctrine of Basic Structure
c. Doctrine of Colourable Legislation
d. Doctrine of Pith and Substance

Principle of Vicarious Liability was first time decided in the case of
a. R v Tolson
b. R v Huggins
c. R v Stephenson
d. R v Prince

The case of K M Nanavati v State of Maharashtra is related to
a. Dacoity
b. Grave and Sudden Provocation
c. Theft
d. Abatement

The case of R v Dudley and Stephen is related to the defence of
a. Necessity
b. Insanity
c. Mistake of fact
d. None of the above

Dhulabhai v State of MP is related to which of the following under CPC?
a. Interim Orders
b. Jurisdiction of Civil Court
c. First Appeals
d. Pleadings