Clat pg constitution case laws pyq list

1) Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa:- Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa is a significant

case and is considered a landmark case, which changed the course of custodial
deaths in India. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of
India cannot be denied to convicts, under trials, or other prisoners in custody, except
according to procedure established by law. There is a great responsibility on the
police or prison authorities to ensure that the citizen in its custody is not deprived of
his right to life. https://lawplanet.in/nilabati-behera-vs-state-of-orissa-1933/
2) Nazaria motors v state of AP
3) State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (Conflicts Between Fundamental Rights
and DPSP) : This judgement proved as a historic event and decision of the Supreme
Court. It led to the 1st Amendment in the Constitution of India in relation to the
reservation policy in India. The amendment included the adding of clause 4 under Article
15. The judgement accounts at the impugned Communal Government Order adopted
before independence and in continuance even after the Constitution came into force. This
order had the reservation policy on the foundation of caste system in the state maintained
college institutions. The court held this government order to be void in nature. This
judgement is important as it resolves the conflict between Fundamental Rights and
Directive Principles of State Policy. It says that whenever the conflict between
Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy arises, the Fundamental
Rights hold the upper hand over the Directive Principles of State Policy. When a
fundamental right is violated and directive principle is also in question, the preference
will be of fundamental rights. https://lawcirca.com/state-of-madras-v-champakam-
dorairajan-conflicts-between-fundamental-rights-and-dpsp/
4) Shankari Prasad v. Union of India:- It was evident that there existed a conflict
between Article 13 and Article 368 of the Indian constitution. On one hand Article
368 gave legislature the power to amend the constitution at the same time Article 13
(2) restricted the same. The Supreme Court in this case used the doctrine of
harmonious construction in an attempt to resolve the conflicting provisions. It was
concluded that the word 'law' in Article 13 (2) is for ordinary laws and not
constitutional laws. Thereby limiting the extent of 'law' under Article 13 (2).This also
meant that the parliament had exclusive power under Article 368 to amend the
constitution including the fundamental rights under part III of the constitution4. The
apex court validated Article 31 A&B and also upheld the validity of the agrarian land
reforms. https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/A-Case-Analysis-Shankari-
Prasad-v-Union-of-India-Supreme-Court
5) Sajjan singh V State of Rajasthan:- The court by upholding the validity of the
constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 held that the Parliament has
complete authority to amend all parts of the Constitution including the Fundamental
Rights. However this decision was overruled by IC Golaknath V State of Punjab which
was further overruled by case of Kedhavnanda Bharti V State of Kerala giving rise to
the doctrine of Basic Structure. https://lawfaculty.in/sajjan-singh-v-state-of-
rajasthan/#:~:text=CONCLUSION%3A%20The%20Court%20by%20upholding,in
%20the%20case%20of%20I.C.
6) IC Golaknath V State of Punjab :- This ruling stopped the legislature from
infringing on citizens’ basic rights by passing legislation that limited the
legislature’s jurisdiction. The trial was focused on preserving basic human

VIRAJ AREWAR
Clat pg constitution case laws pyq list

rights that no government can take away. By establishing that

parliamentarians are not exempt from the law, the Golaknath case upheld the
“rule of law.”
7) Kedhavnanda Bharti V State of Kerala
8) Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union of India:- In the previous case of Gian Kaur's
case5, the honourable Supreme Court rejected the recognition of the right to die
within the right to life under article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This case forms the
historical judgement of the legalization of passive euthanasia in India which would
end the distress and affliction of patients undergoing unbearable and prolonged
suffering. With the advent of modern technology, we have failed to recognize that
it's not the technology that governs and sustains humans but rather vice-versa. Every
single citizen is entitled to and reserves the right to die with dignity.
9) Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State Of Bihar and Others
10) Dr Subramanian Swamy V State of Kerala (principle of secularism)
11) Berubari Case (1960) :- court pronounced that though the Preamble is an integral
part of the constitution which acted as key to the drafting committee of the
constitution and talks about the country being sovereign, it cannot deprive the
legislation from performing its functions, and neither can be utilised for declaring
any part of the constitution as equivocal. This is because the preamble does not act
as an origin conferring powers to the parliament under provisions given laid down
in the Constitution of India.
12) MR Balaji v. State of Mysore (Reservation less than 50%):- The court, in this case,
agreed that reservation should be essentially provided to the weaker sections of the
society in order to uplift them but at the same time, the court clarified that it should
not be done by cutting the interest of the remaining sections of society. The powers
conferred on the State to provide reservation under Articles 15(4) as well as 16(4)
are to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections so
that they could be protected from social injustice. However, when the State provides
unreasonable reservation to weaker sections, it does injustice to the other sections
discarding the whole principle of social equality, which the said provisions were
originally introduced for. This case also threw light on the importance of national
interest above all, which would be affected if the qualified and competent students
would be denied admissions in the institutions of higher and technical education for
the sake of reservation.
13) Murli S Deora V Union of India(Air Pollution, Cigerrate):- The Supreme Court has
banned smoking in public places through a process known as “Judicial Activism.” The
Judiciary, in turn, planted the germ for the restriction of smoking in public places. In
this case, the judiciary played a key role in prohibiting smoking in public areas, which
has resulted in a drop in annual deaths. It not only outlawed smoking in public
places, but it also declared that the right to a healthy environment is a fundamental
right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
14) Sunil Batra Case:- The State should take steps to keep up to the Standard Minimum
Rules for Treatment of Prisoners recommended by the United Nations, especially
those relating to work and wages, treatment with dignity community contact and

VIRAJ AREWAR
Clat pg constitution case laws pyq list

correctional strategies. The Prisons Act needs rehabilitation and the Prison Manual
total overhaul, even the Model Manual being out of focus with healing goals. A
correctional-cum orientation course is necessitous for the prison staff inculcating the
constitutional values, therapeutic approaches and tension- free management. The
prisoners' rights should be protected by the court. To make this jurisdiction viable,
free legal services to the prisoner programmes should be promoted by professional
organisations recognised by the Court such as for e.g. Free Legal Aid (Supreme Court)
Society. The District Bar should keep a cell for prisoner relief .One cannot
rehabilitate a man through brutality and disrespect, if we treat a man like an animal,
then we must expect him to act like one.
15) Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)(Death Penalty):- The Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal in accordance with the majority opinion. The
Court dismissed the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 302 of
the IPC in so far as it prescribes the death sentence, as well as, the
constitutionality of Section 354(3) of the CrPC, 1973 was rejected.
16)

VIRAJ AREWAR