CLAT legal current affairs, April 2026: Supreme Court judgments
5 judgments the Supreme Court delivered in April 2026, each summarised from the Court’s own judgment and linked to it, with a note on the principle a CLAT passage could turn on.
Recognising a headline is not the same as answering a passage-based question on it. The free Diagnostic Test includes a full Current Affairs and GK section.
Take the free Diagnostic Test →Supreme Court judgments, April 2026
Public contracts given without tender: CBI enquiry ordered. Save Mon Region Federation v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2026 INSC 320, decided 6 April 2026. A writ petition alleged that public works contracts and work orders in Arunachal Pradesh were awarded without tenders. The Court restated that the State cannot hand out benefits at the wish of any political or administrative functionary: a contract must be awarded by a transparent, non-discriminatory method that gives eligible persons a fair chance to compete. Finding that the investigation needed an agency independent of the State executive, it directed the CBI to register a preliminary enquiry and investigate, within a fixed time, how the contracts were awarded and executed. Read the judgment on sci.gov.in (PDF).
What CLAT could ask: Article 14 and the rule against arbitrariness in State largesse; when a constitutional court hands an investigation to the CBI.
A post reserved for persons with disabilities in the unreserved category goes by merit. West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. v. Dipendu Biswas, 2026 INSC 330, decided 7 April 2026. A post was notified as unreserved for candidates with low vision. A candidate from an OBC category, who also had low vision, scored more than the unreserved candidate. The Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench held that the unreserved candidate must get the post. The Supreme Court set that aside and restored the Single Bench’s order. Applying its 2021 decision in Saurav Yadav, it treated the disability quota as a horizontal reservation: the first step is to see who, on merit, fits the open slot. Read the judgment on sci.gov.in (PDF).
What CLAT could ask: Horizontal and vertical reservation; the open category is open to everyone on merit.
Backing out of a mediated divorce settlement. Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi, 2026 INSC 360, decided 13 April 2026. A couple settled all their disputes and filed the first motion for divorce by mutual consent. Before the second motion the wife withdrew from the settlement and pursued proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. The Court held that continuing those proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and quashed them. Its final directions close every civil and criminal case arising from the marriage and bar fresh ones. Read the judgment on sci.gov.in (PDF).
What CLAT could ask: Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act (two motions); abuse of process; the Court’s power to do complete justice under Article 142.
Seat, not venue, decides which court hears a challenge to an arbitral award. J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency v. Rash Builders India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 INSC 368, decided 15 April 2026. The Court revisited the difference between the seat of an arbitration and the venue where hearings happen. Naming a seat works like an exclusive jurisdiction clause: only the courts of the seat supervise the arbitration, including a challenge to the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Here the seat was Srinagar, so the court there alone could hear the challenge. The High Court’s order returning the Section 34 application was set aside. Read the judgment on sci.gov.in (PDF).
What CLAT could ask: Seat versus venue; party autonomy; Section 34 challenges.
A murder conviction cannot rest on “last seen together” alone. Anand Jakkappa Pujari v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 417, decided 27 April 2026. Two men were convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence. The Court found that the discovery relied on under Section 27 of the Evidence Act had been made at the instance of a different accused, and that the discovery record was not drawn up according to law, so it could not be used against the appellants. That left only the circumstance that they were last seen with the deceased, which was not enough. The prosecution case “may be true” but had not reached “must be true”. Both appellants were acquitted. Read the judgment on sci.gov.in (PDF).
What CLAT could ask: Circumstantial evidence; Section 27 discovery statements; proof beyond reasonable doubt.
How to use this digest
CLAT does not ask you to recall a case name. It gives you a passage and asks you to apply the principle in it. For each judgment above, write the principle in one sentence, then change one fact and ask whether the result changes.
For daily legal current affairs from September 2026 onward, each written from the source document, see Legal Updates.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where do these April 2026 judgments come from?
Each one was read from the judgment published on the Supreme Court of India’s website, sci.gov.in, and the entry links to that PDF. If a summary here and the judgment differ, the judgment is right.
Does CLAT ask for case names and dates?
Rarely. CLAT’s legal and current affairs passages test whether you can read a passage built on a recent development and apply its principle. Knowing what a court decided and why is what helps.
Why does this digest cover only Supreme Court judgments?
Because every entry has to be checked against a primary document, and the Court’s own judgments are that. News that could not be traced to an official source has been left out.
Check whether your GK reading is actually sticking
Recognising a headline is not the same as answering a passage-based question on it. The free Diagnostic Test includes a full Current Affairs and GK section.
Take the free Diagnostic Test →Or create a free account for a full mock, a past paper for each exam, 12 open Legal GK headings and the daily games.