# Supreme Court Judgments 2025: What Every CLAT Aspirant Must Know
The Current Affairs section of CLAT is not a test of headlines. It is a test of legal context — whether you can read a passage about a recent event and understand what constitutional principle it implicates, what the broader legal significance is, and how the courts reasoned their way to a conclusion. Supreme Court judgments are the richest source of that kind of material, and the examiners know it.
In 2025, the Supreme Court delivered rulings that touched every high-frequency CLAT topic: federalism and Centre–State relations, fundamental rights, religious freedom, criminal law, and judicial appointments. This post covers the eight most important ones — not as summaries of facts, but as the exam wants you to understand them: principle, provision, significance, and the question the Court was actually answering.
Bookmark this page. Update it as you build your current affairs notes. Every case here has appeared in mock tests and is a strong candidate for passage-based questions in CLAT 2027.
1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (April 2025) — Article 200 and the Governor's power over State Bills
Constitutional provisions: Articles 200, 201, 142 Core principle: A Governor cannot exercise a "pocket veto" over Bills passed by a State Legislature.
Between 2020 and 2023, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed twelve Bills — primarily concerning university administration and Vice-Chancellor appointments — and sent them to the Governor for assent. The Governor, R.N. Ravi, neither gave assent nor returned them. When the Supreme Court sought an explanation, the Governor suddenly withheld assent to ten Bills without the required message under Article 200, and later reserved all ten for the President after the Assembly reconsidered and re-passed them.
On 8 April 2025, a two-judge bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that this conduct was unconstitutional. The Court clarified that under Article 200, a Governor has exactly three options when a Bill is presented: assent to it, withhold assent and return it to the Legislature with reasons, or reserve it for the President. These options are exhaustive. "There is no scope for the Governor to decide not to decide," wrote Justice Pardiwala. Indefinite silence is not a constitutional option. Once a Bill is reconsidered and re-passed by the Legislature, the Governor must assent — he cannot reserve it again for the President unless the reconsidered Bill contains substantial amendments.
Invoking Article 142, the Court deemed twelve pending Bills as having received assent, ending the standoff. It also prescribed timelines — Governors should act within three months; if the Bill is re-passed, within one month.
The November 2025 twist. In a Presidential Reference decided on 20 November 2025, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court partially modified the April judgment. The Bench held that judicially imposed timelines cannot bind the Governor or President under Articles 200 and 201, and that courts cannot "deem assent" to a Bill. However, the Bench confirmed that indefinite, unexplained inaction remains subject to judicial review and that courts can intervene to prevent constitutional standstill.
Why this matters for CLAT. The Governor–Legislature relationship is a perennial CLAT topic. Both the April and November 2025 judgments directly expand the scope of what could appear in a legal reasoning or current affairs passage. The key principles to retain: the Governor has only three options under Article 200; silence is not one of them; but courts cannot impose rigid timelines or substitute the Governor's constitutional function.
2. In Re: Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 — Article 26 and Parliament's power to regulate religious endowments
Constitutional provisions: Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, 300A Core principle: Courts presume the constitutionality of legislation. A stay requires demonstrating that the law is manifestly arbitrary or beyond legislative competence.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, passed by Parliament in April 2025, introduced sweeping changes to the administration of Waqf properties in India. Key changes included a requirement that a person must have demonstrably practised Islam for at least five years before creating a Waqf; expanded government oversight through district collectors; inclusion of non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards; and removal of the concept of "Waqf by user" for future properties.
Over 65 petitions challenged the Act as violating Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 25 and 26 (freedom of religion and right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs), and 300A (right to property). On 15 September 2025, a bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih refused a blanket stay on the entire statute, reiterating the well-established principle that there is a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of any legislation passed by Parliament.
However, the Court stayed specific provisions pending final adjudication. The five-year practising Muslim requirement was stayed because there was no administrative mechanism to determine compliance — the provision could not be implemented without being arbitrary. Provisions allowing executive officers (Collectors) to adjudicate disputes over whether government property had been declared Waqf were stayed on separation of powers grounds: executive authorities cannot determine citizens' rights in property disputes. The Court also directed that non-Muslim representation on Waqf Bodies should not exceed four members on the Central Waqf Council and three on State Waqf Boards.
Why this matters for CLAT. The Waqf judgment is almost certain to appear in CLAT 2027's current affairs passages. It implicates Article 26 (right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs), the doctrine of separation of powers, the standard for granting interim stays against legislation, and the general principle that Parliament's laws are presumed constitutional until shown otherwise.
The constitutional principle: Courts do not stay statutes casually. The bar is high — the petitioner must show that the law is either beyond legislative competence or manifestly violates a constitutional provision. This principle is directly testable in CLAT legal reasoning passages.
3. Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies (2025 INSC 1057) — Judicial power to modify arbitral awards
Constitutional provisions: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34 and Section 37 Core principle: Courts can modify an arbitral award rather than only set it aside or remit it.
In a landmark five-judge Constitution Bench verdict, the Supreme Court resolved a long-standing question in Indian arbitration law: can a court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 modify an arbitral award, or can it only set aside (nullify) or remit (send back for reconsideration) it?
The majority held that courts do possess the power to modify awards — including severing invalid or non-arbitrable portions while preserving the valid remainder, and adjusting post-award interest rates where justified. The Court, however, emphasised that this is not an appellate power and should not be used to re-examine the merits of the dispute. The rationale: an all-or-nothing approach — either enforcing a flawed award in full or nullifying it entirely — leads to unnecessary cost and delay for parties.
Justice K.V. Viswanathan dissented, arguing that no such modification power exists under the statute and that its exercise risks undermining India's compliance with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, making enforcement of modified Indian awards more difficult internationally.
Why this matters for CLAT. Arbitration law is increasingly part of CLAT's legal reasoning passages, particularly as commercial dispute resolution becomes a high-visibility policy topic. The principle of judicial restraint in arbitration — courts as supervisors, not appellate bodies — is a well-tested concept. The dissent is also pedagogically valuable: it demonstrates that legal principles involve genuine disagreement, not just right and wrong answers.
4. In Re: Governor and President's Powers — Presidential Reference (November 2025)
Constitutional provisions: Articles 200, 201, 143, 142 Core principle: The President and Governors act as constitutional functionaries, not rubber stamps — their discretion cannot be judicially timed or substituted.
As described in Judgment 1 above, the April 2025 Tamil Nadu judgment triggered a Presidential Reference under Article 143(1). President Droupadi Murmu referred fourteen constitutional questions to a five-judge Constitution Bench, asking the Court to clarify the scope of gubernatorial and Presidential powers under Articles 200 and 201.
On 20 November 2025, the Constitution Bench delivered an advisory opinion. Its key holdings: courts cannot prescribe judicially mandated timelines for the Governor or President to act on Bills; the concept of "deemed assent" — where a court treats a Bill as having received assent after a deadline passes — does not exist under the Constitution; decisions of the Governor and President under Articles 200 and 201 are not fully justiciable; and the Governor retains limited discretion, including in matters where reservation for the President's consideration is constitutionally appropriate.
The advisory opinion did not, however, endorse indefinite inaction. It confirmed that prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite delays remain subject to judicial intervention.
Why this matters for CLAT. The Article 143 Presidential Reference is itself a rarely-used constitutional mechanism — only the sixteenth time it has been used since the Court's establishment. The 2025 Advisory Opinion establishes the current authoritative interpretation of Articles 200 and 201. Any passage in CLAT 2027 touching on the Governor's role in state legislation, federalism, or Centre-State relations will likely draw on one or both of these 2025 decisions.
5. All India Judges Association v. Union of India (May 2025) — Three-year practice requirement for Civil Judges
Constitutional provisions: Article 233, 309 Core principle: A minimum period of legal practice is a valid eligibility condition for entry into the subordinate judiciary.
In May 2025, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.G. Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran restored a minimum three-year legal practice requirement for candidates seeking to appear in Civil Judge (Junior Division) examinations across States.
This was significant because it reversed a judicial trend in several states where law graduates — even fresh ones — were being permitted to appear directly for judicial service examinations without having practised at the Bar. The Court held that some meaningful engagement with legal practice before joining the judiciary was essential to ensure quality in the lowest rung of the judicial system, which is where the vast majority of Indian litigants first encounter the justice system.
In November 2025, the Court clarified that this requirement would not apply retrospectively to Judicial Officers already appointed before May 2025 who wished to seek appointment in another State's judicial service — their existing service experience would be sufficient.
Why this matters for CLAT. Judicial appointments and the structure of India's judiciary are recurring current affairs themes. This judgment is also directly relevant to CLAT aspirants as future lawyers: understanding the entry requirements for various legal careers is part of what it means to be informed about the legal profession you are entering.
6. Speaker's accountability under the Tenth Schedule — Padi Kaushik Reddy case (July 2025)
Constitutional provisions: Articles 102, 190, Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law), Articles 122 and 212 Core principle: The Speaker does not enjoy absolute constitutional immunity from judicial scrutiny in disqualification proceedings.
In July 2025, a two-judge bench of Chief Justice Gavai and Justice Masih clarified that the Speaker does not enjoy unreviewable immunity when exercising powers under Paragraph 6(1) of the Tenth Schedule — the provision that empowers the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions against Members of the Legislature on grounds of defection.
The Court held that while the Speaker has exclusive jurisdiction to decide disqualification petitions, this jurisdiction must be exercised within a reasonable time. Where the Speaker fails to act, judicial review is available. The determinative jurisdiction of the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule is justiciable — courts can step in to prevent indefinite delay in defection proceedings.
The case arose from a petition challenging the inaction of the Telangana Assembly Speaker in deciding disqualification petitions against ten MLAs alleged to have defected from their original party.
Why this matters for CLAT. Anti-defection law and the Tenth Schedule are high-frequency topics in CLAT's legal reasoning section. The principle that constitutional authorities — even those with exclusive jurisdiction — cannot exercise a veto through inaction mirrors the logic of the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment and is worth noting as part of a pattern in the Court's 2025 jurisprudence.
7. Jojari River Pollution Case — In Re: 2 Million Lives at Risk (2025 INSC 1341)
Constitutional provisions: Articles 21 (right to life), Article 48A (directive principle on environment), Environment Protection Act, 1986 Core principle: Industrial pollution causing a public health crisis is justiciable as an infringement of the right to life under Article 21.
Treating industrial pollution of the Jojari River in Rajasthan as a public health emergency, the Supreme Court held that the contamination of a river that affects millions of people's access to safe water falls squarely within the right to life guaranteed by Article 21. The Court directed immediate remedial action, holding that environmental degradation is not merely an administrative problem but a constitutional one.
Why this matters for CLAT. Environmental law and Article 21 are the two most frequently appearing themes in CLAT's current affairs and legal reasoning sections. This case reinforces that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to a clean environment and safe drinking water — an expansion of Article 21's scope that has been developing since the Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991) judgment and reached its clearest expression in M.C. Mehta cases. Environmental passages in CLAT almost always embed questions about Article 21's scope alongside the factual content.
8. Female heir's right to tribal ancestral property — Ram Charan v. Sukhram (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1465)
Constitutional provisions: Article 14 (equality before law), Article 21 (right to life with dignity) Core principle: Denying a female heir the right to ancestral property solely on the basis of custom or tribal practice violates the constitutional guarantee of equality.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that a tribal woman (or her legal heirs) is entitled to an equal share in ancestral property, overriding customary practices that excluded female heirs. The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi held that unless a specific law prescribes otherwise, denying female heirs property rights "only exacerbates gender discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out."
The Court applied principles of justice, equity and good conscience — alongside Article 14 — to hold that the plaintiffs, as the legal heirs of the tribal woman, were entitled to their equal share in their maternal grandfather's property.
Why this matters for CLAT. Gender rights in property law and the intersection of personal law, tribal law, and constitutional rights is a deeply recurring theme in CLAT passages. This judgment is also notable for its invocation of "justice, equity and good conscience" as a legal principle — a phrase that appears in the Civil Procedure Code and in early Indian jurisprudence as a gap-filling mechanism, and which has appeared in CLAT legal reasoning passages before.
How to use these cases in your preparation
Understanding that these judgments exist is not enough. CLAT tests whether you can apply their reasoning — not recall their facts.
For each case above, your notes should record: the constitutional provision at the centre of the judgment; the principle the Court laid down; the reasoning behind it (not just the conclusion); and one or two sentences on what it changes from the law that existed before.
When you encounter a CLAT passage about one of these cases — or a case built on the same legal principle — you will not be starting from scratch. You will be recognising familiar legal terrain.
If you want structured support in building current affairs notes that connect to legal principles in exactly this way, Ab Initio's coaching programme includes monthly legal current affairs sessions designed around the CLAT passage format. Each session takes one significant development, unpacks the constitutional principle behind it, and builds it into your reasoning toolkit. The details are on the application page.
---
Frequently asked questions
Do I need to memorise case names and years for CLAT? No. CLAT does not test rote recall of case names. What it tests is whether you can read a passage describing a legal dispute and apply the principle it states. However, knowing the major 2025 judgments makes you faster at recognising the principle in a passage — because you have already encountered the legal territory.
How many Supreme Court judgments should I cover for CLAT 2027? Eight to twelve significant judgments from 2025–2026 is a realistic and sufficient target for the Current Affairs section. Focus on judgments that touch constitutional law, criminal law (including BNS-related cases), environmental law, and judicial appointments — these are the categories that CLAT examiners draw from most heavily.
Will CLAT 2027 ask about the Waqf Amendment Act? It is a strong candidate. The Act combines Parliament's law-making power, religious freedom (Articles 25–26), minority rights, property rights (Article 300A), and the separation of powers — it is exactly the kind of multi-layered legal development that CLAT passage-setters favour.
Where can I find more 2025 judgments for CLAT preparation? The Supreme Court Observer, Live Law, and Bar and Bench publish detailed analyses of major judgments throughout the year. For CLAT-specific curation, Ab Initio's monthly current affairs sessions compile the developments most likely to appear in exam passages, with CLAT-style questions attached.