Navigating CLAT? These Landmark Judgments are Your GPS.
Preparing for CLAT requires a deep understanding of core legal concepts, and few things are as crucial as landmark judgments. These aren't just historical cases; they're the foundational pillars of Indian law, shaping our constitutional fabric and setting precedents that influence countless future rulings. For a CLAT aspirant, knowing these judgments isn't about just memorization; it's about grasping the legal reasoning and principles they established.
The Basic Structure Doctrine and Constitutional Supremacy:
Expanding the Right to Life and Liberty:
Another monumental case is Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). Prior to this, Article 21's "procedure established by law" was interpreted narrowly, allowing for a law to be valid as long as it was a law, regardless of its fairness. The Maneka Gandhi case changed everything. The Supreme Court gave a broad and expansive interpretation to Article 21, establishing that the procedure must be "just, fair, and reasonable." This ruling effectively created a "golden triangle" of Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedoms), and 21 (right to life), ensuring that any law restricting personal liberty must satisfy the principles of all three. This judgment is the reason why the right to life now includes things like the right to a clean environment, the right to health, and the right to education.
Equality, Privacy, and Social Justice:
The pursuit of social justice and individual dignity is reflected in cases like Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), popularly known as the Mandal Commission case. This judgment is the cornerstone of reservation policy in India. It upheld the validity of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) but also introduced the crucial concept of the "creamy layer" to exclude those who are already socio-economically advanced from the benefits of reservation. It also established a 50% ceiling on reservations, a key principle that continues to be debated today.
In a more recent victory for individual rights, the Supreme Court's decision in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by partially striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This judgment was a landmark for LGBTQ+ rights, recognizing that sexual orientation is an inherent part of identity and that discrimination on this basis violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
Finally, the Vishaka and others vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) case, born from the brutal gang rape of a social worker, Bhanwari Devi, addressed the pervasive issue of sexual harassment at the workplace. In the absence of specific legislation, the Supreme Court stepped in and formulated the "Vishaka Guidelines." These guidelines were a legal mandate for employers to prevent sexual harassment and create a safe working environment. They served as the de facto law until the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act in 2013, solidifying a woman's right to a dignified work life.
Understanding these landmark judgments is not just about memorizing facts; it's about developing a legal perspective and appreciating how the law evolves to meet the challenges of a modern society. For CLAT aspirants, this is the key to mastering legal reasoning.
