IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS FOR CLAT PG 2025 of October 2024 Pg.

1. Sukanya Shantha vs Union of India and ors

COURT: The Supreme Court of India

CORAM: CJI D Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 3rd October 2024

FACTS

A petition was filed before the High Court by journalist Sukanya Shantha, who has extensively
reported on caste-based discrimination in prison barracks. She pointed out that prison manuals
in several States encourage caste discrimination.

The petitioner sought the repeal of discriminatory provisions found in prison manuals of Uttar
Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Punjab, Odisha,
Jharkhand, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether provisions in the Prison Manuals of various States which distinguish between inmates
based on caste are unconstitutional?

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court said that "We have held that assigning cleaning and sweeping to
marginalized and assigning cooking to higher caste is nothing but a violation of Article 15. Such
indirect uses of phrases which target so called lower castes cannot be used within our
constitutional framework, even if caste is not explicitly mentioned, 'menial' etc. targets the
same.”

The Supreme Court ordered that "All such provisions (enabling caste discrimination) are held to
be unconstitutional. All States are directed to make changes in accordance with the judgment.
References to habitual offenders shall be in reference to the habitual offender legislations and all
such references of habitual offenders in state prison manuals are declared as unconstitutional.
 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS FOR CLAT PG 2025 of October 2024 Pg. 2

Caste column in convict or undertrial registrars shall be deleted. This court takes suo motu
cognizance of discrimination inside prisons and registry is directed to list In re: discrimination
inside prisons after three months and States shall submit compliance report with this judgment
before the court.”

2. In Re Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955

COURT: The Supreme Court of India

CORAM: CJI D Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Mishra,

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 17th October 2024

FACTS

Several writ petitions were filed under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of
Section 6A, contending that: Parliament was not empowered to enact such a law under Articles
6, 7, and 11 of the Constitution.
 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS FOR CLAT PG 2025 of October 2024 Pg. 3

Section 6A added special provisions for citizenship of migrants who came to Assam from
Bangladesh, dividing them into two categories:

 Those who entered before 1st January 1966.

The cut-off date of 25th March 1971 was chosen because it was when Bangladesh declared
independence, leading to a significant refugee crisis.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (“Citizenship Act”) violates Articles 11 (power to
regulate citizenship), 14 (equality), 29 (protection of minority interests), 326 (right to vote), and
355 (duty of Union to protect states) of the Constitution.?

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A by a 4-1 majority,
addressing contentious issues around citizenship in Assam.

The majority held that Section 6A aligns with the fundamental purpose of Articles 6 and 7 of the
Constitution, which seek to provide citizenship to individuals of Indian origin who suffered from
political disturbances in neighbouring nations. In any case, the provisions in Part II of the
Constitution (Arts 5-11) only prescribe who would be granted citizenship at the commencement
of the Constitution.

Justice Pardiwala in his dissenting opinion held that Section 6A is not similar to Articles 6 and 7
because Section 6A(3) of the Citizenship Act puts the burden on the State to determine
suspected immigrants as opposed to requiring individuals to register for citizenship.
 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS FOR CLAT PG 2025 of October 2024 Pg. 4

3. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors v Lalta Prasad

COURT: The Supreme Court of India

CORAM: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 23rd October 2024

FACTS

A petition was filed before the Supreme Court by the state government. In October 2007, the
Supreme Court in State of UP v Lalta Prasad Vaish noted that the 1990 decision in the
Synthetic & Chemicals case had ignored a 1956 five-judge Bench decision in Ch. Tika Ramji v
State of Uttar Pradesh.

The matter was, thus, referred to a nine-judge Constitution Bench on December 8, 2010. The
States argued that the power to tax industrial alcohol is vital in the post-GST indirect tax regime
and to monitor public health.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether States could regulate industrial alcohol/denatured spirits by way of Entry 8 which
confers powers on the State to deal with intoxicating liquors?

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme noted that Entry 52 of the Union List empowers the Central government to
regulate those industries which have been declared by parliament to be of public interest.

The Supreme Court said that intoxicating liquor under Entry 8 cannot be restricted to potable
alcohol. It also overruled a 1990 judgment in Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of
Uttar Pradesh which had said that “intoxicating liquor” refers only to potable alcohol and that
States cannot tax industrial alcohol.
 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS FOR CLAT PG 2025 of October 2024 Pg. 5

The Supreme Court held that the meaning of intoxicating liquor under Entry 8 of the State List
is beyond the narrow definition of alcoholic beverages or potable alcohol and includes all kinds
of alcohol which can adversely affect public health.

4. OPG Power Generation Private Limited vs.

COURT: The Supreme Court of India

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 20th September 2024

FACTS

Appeals were filed before the Supreme Court against a September 2021 Madras High Court
ruling that had restored a July 2020 arbitral award. A contractual dispute between OPG Power
Generation Private Ltd, a subsidiary of Gita Power and Infrastructure Private Limited, and
Enexio Power Cooling Solutions.
 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS FOR CLAT PG 2025 of October 2024 Pg. 6

Enexio had won the bid in a tender floated by OPG for the design, manufacture, supply, erection
and commissioning of air-cooled condenser units at a Thermal Power Plant at Gummidipoondi,
Tamil Nadu. An arbitral tribunal that examined the dispute between the two parties had ruled in
Enexio's favor. Single-judge of the Madras High Court later set aside the arbitral award.
However, Division Bench of the High Court restored the arbitral award.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the Courts can interfere the arbitral awards normally?

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court said that "In a case where reasons appear insufficient or inadequate, if, on a
careful reading of the entire award, coupled with documents recited/ relied therein, the
underlying reason, factual or legal, that forms the basis of the award, is discernible/ intelligible,
and the same exhibits no perversity, the Court need not set aside the award while exercising
powers under Section 34 or Section 37 of the 1996 Act, rather it may explain the existence of
that underlying reason while dealing with a challenge laid to the award.

The Supreme Court while rejecting the plea held that there was no palpable error to make the
arbitral award patently illegal, perverse or in conflict with the public policy of India. The
Division Bench of the Madras High Court had sufficiently clarified this concern and that there is
no need to further meddle in the matter.
 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS FOR CLAT PG 2025 of October 2024 Pg. 7

5. Ravinder Kumar Sharma v Lieutenant Governor

COURT: The Supreme Court of India

CORAM: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 14th October 2024

FACTS

A petition was filed before the Supreme Court by petitioner Ravinder Kumar Sharma (a
Congress leader) through Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi challenging the LG’s power
to nominate 5 more members to the legislative assembly of J & K.

The J&K assembly has 90 elected members. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganizations Act of
2019 envisages nomination of 5 more MLAs by the LG to represent the displaced Kashmiri
people and those from Pak Occupied Kashmir. This raises the majority mark in the assembly
from 45 to 48.

In the recently concluded assembly elections, the INDIA coalition of J&K National Conference,
Indian National Congress and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) secured 49 seats in the
assembly putting them above the majority mark of 48 even in case of nomination of 5 members.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the Lieutenant Governor’s (LG) is having the power to nominate MLAs?

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and PV Sanjay Kumar said it was not
inclined to entertain the matter and asked the petitioner to first approach the High Court of
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The Top Court added that "In many cases where we have
entertained at first instance (bypassing High Court), we see many things get left out.”
 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS FOR CLAT PG 2025 of October 2024 Pg. 8

6. Omkar v. The Union of India and Ors 2024 INSC

COURT: The Supreme Court of India

CORAM: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice B.R. Gavai

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 15th October 2024

FACTS

A special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Cout challenging a Bombay High Court
decision that adjourned the petitioner's plea against a regulation that disqualifies persons with
speech and language disabilities exceeding 40% from MBBS admissions.

The High Court had deferred the matter for three weeks without considering the petitioner's
request for interim relief regarding his admission to an MBBS course under the 'persons with
disability' category.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether individuals with over 40% speech and language disability be denied admission to
MBBS courses merely based on the quantification of their disability?

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court said that "The approach should not be as to how best to disqualify the
candidates and make it difficult for them to pursue and realize their educational goals. Concept
of reasonable accommodation would be purposive construction of NMC guidelines. Reasonable
 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS FOR CLAT PG 2025 of October 2024 Pg. 9

accommodation under 2(y) should not be considered narrowly for the ones with assistive
devices. It will further the objectives under the Directive Principles of State Policy.”

The Supreme Court directed the Dean of Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College,
Pune to constitute a medical board to examine as to whether the speech and language disability
of the petitioner would come in the way of his pursuing the MBBS course.

The Supreme Court while allowing the plea held that the candidate's 44 45% disability should
not be a reason to deny admission. Instead, each candidate should be evaluated individually.
 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS FOR CLAT PG 2025 of October 2024 Pg. 10

7. Union of India vs Pranav Srinivasan 2024 INSC

COURT: The Supreme Court of India

CORAM: Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 18th October 2024

FACTS

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court in which the
Indian citizenship was granted to a foreign national. Pranav Srinivasan, who was born in
Singapore in 1999 after his parents had voluntarily acquired Singaporean citizenship in 1998.

Pranav’s parents were originally Indian citizens but relinquished their citizenship when they
became Singaporean citizens. Pranav sought to resume his Indian citizenship upon reaching the
age of majority, filing his application in 2017. His plea was rejected by the Ministry of Home
Affairs, which determined that he did not meet the necessary conditions under Section 5(1)(b) or
Section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. But High Court ruled in his favour.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether citizenship of India can be conferred on foreign nationals through an expansive or

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court observed that “The language used in the provisions of the Citizenship Act is
plain and simple. Hence, the same should be given its ordinary and natural meaning.
Citizenship of India cannot be conferred on foreign citizens by doing violence to the plain
language of the Act.”

The Supreme Court while allowing the appeal held that Pranav was not eligible for citizenship
under Section 8(2) because his parents had lost their Indian citizenship by operation of law
upon acquiring Singaporean citizenship, meaning there was no voluntary renunciation as
required under the section.
 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS FOR CLAT PG 2025 of October 2024 Pg. 11

8. Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar vs State of Gujarat &

COURT: The Supreme Court of India

CORAM: Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 21st October 2024

FACTS

An appeal filed by the convict against his conviction and life sentence. During the pendency of
the appeal, the Gujarat government granted the convict remission. In doing so the State had
imposed certain remission conditions. One was that the convict behaves decently for two years.
The second condition set by the State was that the convict cannot engage in any cognizable
crime or do any act that hurts people or property.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether imposing such a condition while granting remission is justified in the eye of law?

JUDGEMENT
 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS FOR CLAT PG 2025 of October 2024 Pg. 12

The Supreme Court observed that "Such a condition while granting remission becomes too
subjective. Putting such a vague condition while exercising the power under subsection (1) of
Section 432 of the CrPC will give a tool in the hands of the executive to cancel the remission at
its whims and fancies. Therefore, such a condition is arbitrary and will be hit by Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Such a condition cannot be imposed as it will defeat the very object of
remitting the sentence. If a condition imposed is unclear or ambiguous, it can have different
meanings. It becomes very difficult to enforce such conditions.

The Supreme Court said that "Registration of a cognizable offence against the convict, per se, is
not a ground to cancel the remission order. The allegations of breach of condition cannot be
taken at their face value. Every case of breach cannot invite cancellation of the order of
remission. A minor or a trifling breach cannot be a ground to cancel remission. There must be
some material to substantiate the allegations of breach.”

The Supreme Court while partly allowing the plea and quashing the first condition said that "If
the conditions imposed are arbitrary, the conditions will stand vitiated due to violation of Article
14. Such arbitrary conditions may violate the convict's rights under Article 21.”
 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS FOR CLAT PG 2025 of October 2024 Pg. 13

9. The State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Ramjan

COURT: The Supreme Court of India

CORAM: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice C.T. Ravikumar

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 25th October 2024

FACTS

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by the State against the respondent's acquittal
given by the High Court. The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused based on the oral dying
declaration made by the deceased to her mother.

The trial court convicted the accused in a murder case based on the deceased's mother's
testimony deposing that her son (deceased) had made an oral dying declaration pointing out the
names of the accused. However, the conviction was set aside by the High Court after noting a
material discrepancy in the deceased mother's version because the mother, who was the
informant in the case, had not averred anything in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements about a dying
declaration made to her by her son.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the deceased's oral dying declaration to a close relative is reliable for the sole
conviction of the accused?

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court said that “Through the evidence of PW8, the mother of the deceased, who is
also the informant, the prosecution has attempted to establish the existence of an oral dying
declaration. It is to be noted that dying declaration itself is not a strong piece of evidence and
therefore, when it is verbal and that too, allegedly made to a close relative (in this case allegedly
to the mother), evidence of mother about the oral dying declaration was to be treated with care
and caution.”
 IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS FOR CLAT PG 2025 of October 2024 Pg. 14

The Supreme Court while rejecting the appeal held that “There can be no doubt that oral dying
declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness.
In the contextual situation revealed as above, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court
was perfectly justified in considering the oral testimony of PW8 and taking serious note of the
serious omission brought out from her, which is her previous statement made to police, that she
had not stated anything about such an oral dying declaration made by her deceased son.”