If you are preparing for CLAT PG 2027, you already know that simply reading the syllabus is not enough. CLAT PG loves to test recent Supreme Court developments, especially judgments that change an existing position, interpret an important constitutional provision, or connect two areas of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So, instead of trying to read every judgment delivered by the Supreme Court, start with the ones that have a clear legal principle behind them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here are 10 judgments from 2025 and 2026 that deserve a place in your CLAT PG 2027 preparation list.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you are preparing Arbitration Law, do not skip this one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A five-judge Constitution Bench considered whether a court can modify an arbitral award while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The majority held that courts have a limited power to modify an award, rather than being restricted to either setting it aside or leaving it untouched.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is a major Constitutional Law judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The five-judge Bench dealt with Articles 200 and 201, including the powers of the Governor and President regarding Bills passed by State Legislatures. The Court held that courts cannot prescribe fixed timelines or create a concept of “deemed assent” for these constitutional authorities. It also clarified the Governor’s constitutional options under Article 200.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here, the question was about direct recruitment of District Judges under Article 233.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A five-judge Constitution Bench held that judicial officers who had previously practised as advocates for at least seven years can remain eligible for direct recruitment as District Judges under the bar quota. The judgment revisited the earlier position in Dheeraj Mor<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A very important Insolvency Law judgment, and one students should read carefully because the case saw significant developments during 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment dealt with the resolution process of Bhushan Power and Steel and the rights and claims arising during the CIRP. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the resolution-related position after reviewing its earlier decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This judgment brings transgender rights, equality and dignity into focus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court considered the implementation of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and the continuing discrimination faced by transgender persons. The judgment builds on the constitutional foundation laid down in NALSA v. Union of India<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court recognised menstrual health and hygiene as an important part of the constitutional rights to dignity, equality and education. The judgment addressed the need for proper menstrual hygiene facilities in schools, including access to sanitary products and appropriate infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is one to know for Constitutional Law as well as medical ethics and criminal law discussions around euthanasia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court dealt with withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration from a patient in a persistent vegetative state and applied the principles developed in Common Cause v. Union of India<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This case concerns the Permanent Commission for women officers in the Indian Army.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court examined the process through which Short Service Commission officers, predominantly women in the batch before it, were considered for Permanent Commission and addressed concerns regarding equality and fairness in the assessment process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here is an important Criminal Law development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court considered whether a man in a live-in relationship can be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC for cruelty. The case is particularly relevant because it requires students to think beyond the traditional marital relationship while understanding the statutory language and its application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Environmental Law students should keep this case on their list.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court considered whether land being developed for a railway project could be treated as “deemed forest” merely because of the presence of trees and examined the application of the Forest (Conservation) framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You do not need to read every Supreme Court judgment delivered in the last two years. Knowing which judgments deserve your attention is an important part of smart CLAT PG preparation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Use this list as a starting point for your 2027 preparation. Read each judgment with a focus on the facts, legal issue, relevant provision, reasoning and final holding. Then connect it with the older cases and principles it builds upon or changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Remember, a judgment is not important just because you can remember its name. It is important because you can understand the legal principle and apply it when the facts change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, use this list, build your case notes, revise them regularly, and most importantly, practise applying these judgments to questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Don’t Just Memorise Judgments. Learn to Apply Them. For CLAT PG 2027, knowing the names of recent Supreme Court judgments is only the starting point. What matters is being able to identify the legal principle, connect it with existing law, and apply it when the facts change.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n4. Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (2025)<\/strong><\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
5. Jane Kaushik v. Union of India (2025)<\/strong><\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
6. Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India (2026)<\/strong><\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
7. Harish Rana v. Union of India (2026)<\/strong><\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
8. Lt. Col. Pooja Pal v. Union of India (2026)<\/strong><\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
9. Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka (2026)<\/strong><\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
10. Naveen Solanki v. Rail Land Development Authority (2026)<\/strong><\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n