Landmark Judgements For Law Entrance Exam Preparation
Call 8585951111
Landmark Judgements are mostly asked in exams like CLAT, MHCET Law, and others. Hence, aspirants must read it carefully. In this article, we will cover the most important landmark judgments across various subjects of law, along with their key principles and relevance for exams.
Landmark Judgements For Law Entrance Exam Preparation
Landmark judgments play a very crucial role in shaping our country's legal system. Candidates preparing for competitive law exams such as CLAT, AIBE, and Judiciary must include them in their preparation journey. Over the years, the Supreme Court and various High Courts across the country have delivered several groundbreaking rulings. It have defined concepts like fundamental rights, judicial review, liability, and due process.
Cases such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India are frequently asked in exams due to their lasting impact on constitutional interpretation. For law aspirants, understanding landmark judgments is important not only for clearing exams but also for building strong legal reasoning and analytical skills. In this article, we will cover the most important landmark judgments across various subjects of law, along with their key principles and relevance for exams.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- Shah Bano Case (Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985)
- Indira Sawhney & Others v. Union of India, 1992 (Mandal Commission case)
- Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
- Sabarimala Case
- Ayodhya Case (M. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, 2019)
- Sarla Mudgal Case
- NALSA vs. Union of India (2014)
- Vineet Narain vs. Union of India (1997)
- State of UP vs M/S. Lalta Prasad Vaish and Sons
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) created a basic structure overview of the Constitution. The Supreme Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine. This doctrine explained that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution; however, the basic structure, which is the foundation of the Constitution of India, cannot be altered. The basic structure includes Democracy, the rule of Law, Secularism, Judicial Review, and Fundamental Rights. The Doctrine of Basic Structure remains the cornerstone of constitutional interpretation in India.
Commonly asked questions
Following are the test centres for the MHCET Law exam are- Akola, Chandrapur, Amravati, Dhule, Ahmednagar, Gadchiroli, Aurangabad, Gondia, Beed, Hingoli, Bhandara, Jalgaon, Buldhana, Kolhapur, Latur, Kalyan, Dombivali, Mumbai, Nagpur, Mumbai – Suburban Western, Nanded Mumbai – Suburban Central, Nandurbar Nasik, Parbani, New Mumbai, Pune, Palghar, Ratnagiri, Sangli, Rasayani, Satara, Solapur, Shegaon, Thane, Sindudurga, Wardha, Washim Vasai -Virar Yavatmal.
Candidates can appear for the exam every year as long as they meet eligibility criteria. Andhra Pradesh LAWCET, conducted by APSCHE, allows multiple tries to improve scores or secure better colleges. Students can reapply annually for 3-year or 5-year law courses in Andhra Pradesh.
For MHCET Law 2026, eligibility depends on the course. For 5-year LLB, you must pass Class 12 from a recognised board with at least 45% marks (40% for reserved categories). For 3-year LLB, a bachelor's degree in any stream is required. There's no upper age limit for MHCET Law 2026 exam.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
The Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded the interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It included a variety of rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but are implied by the right to life and personal liberty.
Shah Bano Case (Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985)
The Shah Bano Case is a well- known case on the maintenance rights of a divorced Muslim woman, leading to the controversial Muslim Women (Protection of Rights
on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Also Read:
Commonly asked questions
The minimum score a General/OBC candidate needs to score is 35% out of the total marks, which means 42 out of 120 marks.
| General/ OBC | 35% marks out of total marks i.e. 42 out of 120 marks |
|
Candidates can check the AIBE Eligibility Criteria below
Parameter | Eligibility Criteria |
|---|---|
Qualifying exam | Candidates who have passed a three-year LLB or five-year LLB degree are eligible to appear for the AIBE exam. Therefore, the academic qualifying exam for AIBE candidates is
|
Minimum marks in qualifying exam | The BCI mentions no minimum marks are required for appearing in the AIBE exam. However, a candidate must secure a minimum percentage or grades in their law degree as prescribed by universities for further education. |
Age limit for AIBE exam | There is no upper or lower age limit for appearing in the All India Bar Examination. |
State Bar Council Registration/Enrollment | A candidate must be registered with their State Bar Councils as an Advocate. As State Bar Council enrollment is mandatory for AIBE eligibility. Candidates not enrolled as an advocate with the SBC, will not be able to apply for AIBE XXI 2026-27 |
Eligibility for TS LAWCET 2026 needs Indian citizenship. The education rules change based on the course you choose. For the LLB course, you must pass 12th class with at least 45% marks for General, 42% for OBC, and 40% for SC or ST category. There is no age limit for applying to TS LAWCET 2026 exam.
Explore colleges based on CLAT
Want better recommendations?
There is a 90% more chance of getting best college recommendations by sharing preferences.
- Chat with our counselor
- Get your personalised list of colleges & exams matching your preferences
Indira Sawhney & Others v. Union of India, 1992 (Mandal Commission case)
The Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, which is also popularly known as the Mandal Commission. This judgement highlighted the significance of the reservation policy then prevailing in India. It is one of the important constitutional judgments, which highlighted the issues regarding the reservation policy on employment and education for backward classes.
Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
The Court in Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan issued the ‘Vishaka Guidelines’, which provided a definition of sexual harassment and also laid down necessary procedures for employers to follow in both the public and private sectors. The Vishaka Guidelines served as the de facto law on sexual harassment until the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act in 2013.
Sabarimala Case
The Sabarimala Case speaks about the struggle for gender equality for women to worship in religious places. It was a fight against discrimination. It made sure that constitutional principles such as equality, freedom, and dignity prevailed over discriminatory practices based on gender.
Ayodhya Case (M. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, 2019)
The Supreme Court directed the government to hand over the disputed land for the construction of a temple and provide alternate land for the construction of a mosque, settling the longstanding Ayodhya dispute.
Sarla Mudgal Case
This case highlighted the issue of a Hindu man converting to Islam. This practice was prevalent when men used to illegally dissolve their marriage. The court ruled this act as illegal. This Judgment highlighted the need for a Uniform Civil Code.
Also Read:
|
AIBE PYQs Free PDF
|
|
|---|---|
| AIBE Company Law PYQs with Solution FREE PDF | |
NALSA vs. Union of India (2014)
Recognised transgender persons as a 'third gender' and affirmed their fundamental rights under the Constitution, including the right to self-identification of their gender.
Vineet Narain vs. Union of India (1997)
Played a crucial role in the establishment of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). It dealt with the issue of ensuring transparency in the CBI's functioning, particularly in matters related to high-ranking officials.
Explore more Law exams with upcoming dates
28 Jan '26 - 22 Mar '26
15 Nov '25 - 23 Mar '26
1 Nov '25 - 30 Mar '26
3 Mar '26 - 31 Mar '26
4 Apr '26
17 Apr '26
30 Apr '26
5 May '26
12 Feb '26 - 20 Mar '26
21 Apr '26 - 6 May '26
State of UP vs M/S. Lalta Prasad Vaish and Sons
The court decided that all forms of alcohol, including industrial alcohol, are deemed "intoxicating liquors" under Entry 8 since it can be misused to result in intoxication. Because manufactured alcohol is not naturally consumable, it does not fall within the definition of "intoxicating liquors" and is thus still subject to Union oversight, according to dissenting Justice Nagarathna.
Read More:
| AIBE Previous Year Question Papers (HINDI) with Answers: Download For Free | AIBE Exam Mock Test 2026 |
She has over 10 years of experience in the education and publishing sectors. She specialises in exam coverage and content creation. At Shiksha, she writes, analyses, and presents information for students preparing f
Read Full Bio