Current Affairs · Micro-test
Legal and Judicial Current Affairs
CLAT's General Knowledge section leans heavily on judicial developments, and examiners favour judgments whose holdings have become settled law rather than one-off news items.
10 questions · 5 minutes · instant scoring
Updated
What this topic actually tests
The legal and judicial category is the single most CLAT-relevant slice of current affairs because CLAT is, at its core, a law entrance exam, and its GK section routinely tests candidates on Supreme Court and High Court rulings from the preceding year alongside older landmark decisions that keep resurfacing in passages. What recurs is fairly predictable: judgments that expand or clarify fundamental rights (privacy, personal liberty, free speech, equality), decisions that touch federalism or the separation of powers, rulings on personal law and social reform, new legislation or major amendments to existing statutes, and reports or recommendations of Law Commissions that later influence policy. Passage-based questions frequently ask not "what happened" but "what did the court hold" or "which constitutional provision was interpreted," so memorising case names without their core ratio is close to useless. An efficient study method is to build a running one-line case log: case name, year, bench (if a Constitution Bench, note that), the specific holding in a single sentence, and the constitutional article or statute involved. Group judgments by the right or doctrine they touch (Article 21, Article 14, personal law, environmental law) rather than by chronology, since CLAT questions are usually thematic. Cross-check every judgment summary against at least one reliable source, because compressed news summaries often blur the actual legal reasoning. Pair this with a monthly skim of Supreme Court Observer or similar case-tracking digests, and revisit your case log the week before the exam rather than trying to absorb everything for the first time close to the test date. Because CLAT passages are drawn from legal-affairs journalism, reading such writing regularly also builds the comprehension speed the exam separately rewards.
The common trap on this topic
The single biggest trap is conflating a judgment's actual legal holding with a loosely related concept that sounds similar. Aspirants remember that a case is "about privacy" or "about free speech" but cannot state what the court actually decided, which fails them the moment a question asks for the specific right recognised or the article invoked. A second trap is treating every high-profile judgment as having overruled everything before it, when many landmark rulings instead narrow, clarify, or build upon earlier precedent without discarding it. A third is muddling the bench strength or the constitutional provision — for instance, mixing up which case established a doctrine versus which later case merely applied it. Aspirants also frequently forget that a "current affairs" judgment need not be recent to be tested; older landmark cases remain fair game whenever they are institutionally significant, so skipping them because they feel "old news" is a mistake. Finally, many candidates learn case outcomes but not the year or the constitutional bench composition, both of which examiners use to distinguish similar-sounding options in MCQs.
Take the micro-test
The "basic structure doctrine," which holds that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to destroy its fundamental framework, was propounded by the Supreme Court in which case?
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court significantly reinterpreted which constitutional provision to require that any procedure depriving a person of life or liberty be "fair, just and reasonable"?
The right to privacy was declared a fundamental right protected under Article 21 by a nine-judge bench in which case?
Which Supreme Court judgment decriminalised consensual same-sex relations between adults by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code?
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which criminalised sending "offensive" messages online, was struck down as unconstitutional in which case?
The practice of "triple talaq" (instant divorce) was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in which case?
The concept of a "creamy layer" for excluding the economically advanced sections of OBCs from reservation benefits emerged from which landmark judgment?
The Vishaka Guidelines, later codified into a statute on workplace sexual harassment, were laid down by the Supreme Court in the absence of which kind of law at the time?
Minerva Mills v. Union of India is best known for holding that which two components of the Constitution must be kept in harmony, neither being given absolute primacy over the other?
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines curbing the misuse of Article 356 (President's Rule) and held that the floor of the House, not the Governor's subjective assessment, should decide a government's majority, in which case?
Legal and Judicial Current Affairs: answers and explanations
The "basic structure doctrine," which holds that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to destroy its fundamental framework, was propounded by the Supreme Court in which case?
Answer: B. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), decided by a thirteen-judge bench, established that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 cannot be used to alter the Constitution's basic structure. Minerva Mills later applied and reinforced this doctrine but did not originate it.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court significantly reinterpreted which constitutional provision to require that any procedure depriving a person of life or liberty be "fair, just and reasonable"?
Answer: A. Article 21
Maneka Gandhi (1978) held that the "procedure established by law" under Article 21 must itself be fair, just and reasonable, effectively reading due-process protection into Article 21 and linking it with Articles 14 and 19.
The right to privacy was declared a fundamental right protected under Article 21 by a nine-judge bench in which case?
Answer: A. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) unanimously held that the right to privacy is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, overruling earlier contrary observations in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh.
Which Supreme Court judgment decriminalised consensual same-sex relations between adults by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code?
Answer: B. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) held that Section 377, insofar as it criminalised consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, was unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21.
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which criminalised sending "offensive" messages online, was struck down as unconstitutional in which case?
Answer: A. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and having a chilling effect on free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
The practice of "triple talaq" (instant divorce) was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in which case?
Answer: B. Shayara Bano v. Union of India
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) held that the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) was unconstitutional, being manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
The concept of a "creamy layer" for excluding the economically advanced sections of OBCs from reservation benefits emerged from which landmark judgment?
Answer: D. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), also called the Mandal Commission case, upheld 27% OBC reservation while introducing the "creamy layer" exclusion and capping total reservations at broadly 50%.
The Vishaka Guidelines, later codified into a statute on workplace sexual harassment, were laid down by the Supreme Court in the absence of which kind of law at the time?
Answer: D. A specific legislation on sexual harassment at the workplace
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court framed guidelines to address workplace sexual harassment in the absence of dedicated legislation; these guidelines were later replaced by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India is best known for holding that which two components of the Constitution must be kept in harmony, neither being given absolute primacy over the other?
Answer: A. Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy
Minerva Mills (1980) held that the harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy is itself part of the Constitution's basic structure, striking down amendments that gave DPSPs unconditional primacy over Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines curbing the misuse of Article 356 (President's Rule) and held that the floor of the House, not the Governor's subjective assessment, should decide a government's majority, in which case?
Answer: D. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) held that the President's power under Article 356 is subject to judicial review and that a state government's majority should ordinarily be tested on the floor of the Assembly, curbing arbitrary dismissal of state governments.
FAQ
Do CLAT questions test very recent judgments or only landmark old ones?
Both. CLAT tests judgments and legislation from roughly the preceding twelve months alongside older landmark cases that remain constitutionally significant, so a study plan must cover recent developments and revisit classic precedents together.
Is it enough to remember the outcome of a case for CLAT?
No. Examiners frequently ask for the specific constitutional provision interpreted or the precise legal principle established, so a one-line summary of the actual holding matters more than remembering only who won.
How should I organise my notes on judgments for revision?
Group cases by the right or doctrine they concern (personal liberty, equality, federalism, personal law) rather than by date, since CLAT questions are usually built around a theme rather than a strict timeline.
Keep practising
- → Polity and Governance Current Affairs
- → International Relations Current Affairs
- → Economy and Finance Current Affairs
- → All Current Affairs practice
Ready to see the full picture?
This micro-test covers one topic. The full CLAT diagnostic covers all five sections in 30 minutes and gives you a section-wise breakdown of where you actually stand.
Take the Full Diagnostic →
