HomeCurrent Affairs & GKLandmark Judgements Of 2019-2020 for CLAT

Landmark Judgements Of 2019-2020 for CLAT

1 minutes read

This post was first published on March 17, 2020



  • Sitaram Yechury v.​​ Union of India 2019

This case is famously known as the ‘Jammu and Kashmir Habeas Corpus Case’. Herein​​ Sitaram Yechury,​​ general secretary of the Communist Party of India filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court challenging the illegality and constitutional validity of the detention imposed​​ on one of the​​ leader of his​​ party Mohammed Yousuf Tarigiami when a virtual lockdown was imposed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir after the Central Government​​ passed an Act taking away the special status that was granted to the State.​​ 

The Supreme Court allowed the petitioner to visit the detenu; however, restrictions were imposed on his meet​​ and​​ he​​ was not allowed to carry out​​ any other political activities during that tenure.

  • Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd.​​ v.​​ Union of India 2019

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and​​ National Company Law Tribunal​​ and held that it is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

  • Kantaru Rajeevaru v.​​ Indian Young Lawyers Association​​ 2019

Supreme Court in this case has accepted a review petition​​ against the Sabarimala judgement to be​​ referred​​ to the bench of seven judges. Supreme Court in its​​ judgement​​ in the case of ‘Indian Young Lawyers Association vs The State Of Kerala​​ 2018’ uplifted the ban​​ imposed on the entry of women in the​​ temple of Sabarimala in Kerala by declaring it as unconstitutional​​ and violative against Article 25 of the Constitution against which many review petitions were filed and in this case Supreme Court agreed to refer the matter to larger bench of 7 judges as 2018 judgement was passed by a bench of 5 judges.​​ 

  • Mukesh Kumar v.​​ The State Of Uttarakhand​​ 2020

Justice L. Nageswara Rao pronounced​​ that reservation in promotions in public positions is not a fundamental right and States cannot be compelled to provide reservation in appointments and reservations of public posts. Article 16(4) of the Constitution gives a discretionary power to the state government to allow reservation to the people who are not adequately​​ represented in services in such appointments; it is not a mandate on the State and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

  • Satvinder Singh Saluja and others v.​​ State of Bihar 2019

Supreme Court in this case held that​​ Consumption of liquor in a public place, even if done in​​ a private vehicle is an offence​​ under the​​ Bihar Excise Act, 2016​​ and also stated that it​​ comes under the definition of ‘public space’, according to the​​ Act. The Court also held that even if a person enters the territory of the State of Bihar in a drunken state he will be held liable under the Act, even if the consumption has taken place outside the State.

  • Yashwant Sinha and others v. CBI and others 2019

The case is famously known as ‘the Rafale​​ case’. A bench comprising of Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Kaul and Justice Joseph dismissed all the review petitions and gave a clean chit to the NDA government effectively denying the corruption allegations in the Rafale deal regarding the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets.​​ The court in this case highlighted that the documents which are covered under the Official Secrets Act can be produced in the court as evidences in the interest of public justice​​ i.e. the​​ court can rely on such documents in order to do justice and its unauthorized publication do not affect its evidentiary value.

  • Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association v. State of Maharashtra​​ 2019

In this case constitutionality of Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016 was upheld and it was held that the Act is not violative to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court Relaxed the stringent conditions for obtaining license for dance bars and also stated that it is not mandatory for the applicant to prove good character and no previous criminal record.​​ 

  • Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v. Subash Chandra Agarwal​​ 2019

Five judge bench of the Supreme Court held that​​ Chief Justice’s office falls under the category of ‘public authority’ and is subject to the provisions of Right to Information Act. The court highlighted to​​ maintain confidentiality in some aspects of judicial administration​​ while dealing with transparency.

  • M Siddiq (d) through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das and others 2019

The case is famously known as ‘Ayodhya case’. In this case The five judge bench of Supreme Court decided to hand over the disputed land of 2.77​​ acres in Ayodhya to a trust​​ for the construction of Ram Mandir​​ and also under Article 142 of the Constitution ordered to give an alternate five acre tract of land to the Sunni Waqf board to build the mosque.​​ The act of placing idols beneath the central dome of the mosque in 1949 was declared to be an act of desecration i.e. acts of religious impurity.

  • ​​ Indibility Creative Pvt. Ltd and others v. Government of West Bengal and others 2019

In this case a Bengali film ‘Bhobishyoter Bhoot’ (Future Ghost), was stopped from screening by the State Government by unlawful use of the powers of the police. The Supreme Court in this case stated that Right to freedom of speech and expression cannot be restricted by fear of mob violence and public officials are subject to the rule of law. The Court overturned the virtual ban imposed by the government.

  • ​​ BK Pavitra and others v.​​ Union of India​​ 2019

The Supreme Court in this judgement upheld the constitutional validity of Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants promoted on the basis of The Reservation Act 2018 as per Article 16(4A) of the Constitution.​​ This implied that a reserved category employee could be promoted before a senior employee belonging to the general category.​​ 85th Constitutional Amendment Act 2001 extended the benefit of reservation in favour of the SC/ST in matters of promotion with consequential seniority.

  • ​​ Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India 2020

Supreme Court in this case held that​​ Right to internet forms a part of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)​​ (a)​​ and ban of internet in the State of Jammu and Kashmir is violative of it.​​ The court also stated that an order suspending internet services indefinitely is impermissible under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Service) Rules, 2017.

  • ​​ D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions​​ 2019

Supreme Court in this case held that non-governmental organisations substantially financed by the government whether directly or indirectly will fall within the ambit of ‘public authority’ under section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005​​ and also​​ schools and colleges which are​​ substantially financed by the Government​​ fall within the Act.


Visit our complete collection of legal reasoning questions and posts.

Read our legal reasoning post on void agreements and the practice questions here

Read CLATapult’s post on offer and acceptance here. Also, try their mocks for more legal reasoning practice questions.

Visit CLATalogue for more legal reasoning practice questions for CLAT 2020.

Aditya Anand
Aditya Anand
Aditya is 93.1% sure that he knows Japanese. We think he speaks Japanese in Bhojpuri accent.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Golden Gate University - upGrad
Golden Gate University - upGrad
Lawctopus Law School
Lawctopus Law School

Cracking the CLAT!

Get access to all major CLAT updates, study material, and more.

Effective Guide to

You can unsubscribe any time.


Takes a second to click the verification link 

sent to your email.