You have to study every topic covered in the CLAT examination in detail if you want to study at one of the best NLUs. Gaining a strong understanding of different legal ideas is essential to passing the CLAT entrance exam with high marks.
Make a list of all the topics that you are required to study after carefully going over the syllabus in the first place. Questions about historic rulings for CLAT 2024 strike out as being especially crucial among these.
It is not enough to simply be aware of the instances; you also need to comprehend the rationale behind these decisions as well as the significant consequences they have had.
5 Important Landmark Rulings: CLAT Examination
The landmark ruling of “COMMON CAUSE v UOI”
- This case as per the discussions in the Best Coaching institute for CLAT dealt with the petition to eliminate the challenges with the rules established by the Common Cause ruling of 2018, which authorized euthanasia for terminally sick people.
- The petitioner asked the court to review the rules and establish streamlined guidelines.
- The Court believed that the instructions needed to be changed or removed. The Court permitted a two-tiered procedure for authorizing passive euthanasia, which streamlined the process for withdrawing life support from a terminally sick patient.
- The challenging three-tiered process, which required a doctor and the patient’s family to obtain a JMIC’s consent before withdrawing life support, will no longer exist under the new guidelines. We anticipate a comprehensive order with precise instructions.
The landmark ruling of “ABDUL MATEEN SIDDIQUI v UOI”
- In this case, the court emphasized that in order to avoid the abrupt relocation of 50,000 people in the span of seven days, a planned and progressive approach is necessary.
- It emphasized the significance of undertaking rehabilitation programs and keeping people who do not have rights to possession of land.
- The Court directed the Additional Solicitor to investigate ways to accomplish the previously specified objectives.
- Even in the absence of a formal stay, the Court directed that the continuing procedures pertaining to previous orders issued by the Supreme Court under the virtue of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, continue.
- As a result, the Court prevented the current tenant or any other party from building on the land and temporarily stopped the enforcement of the contested ruling from the Uttaranchal High Court.
The landmark ruling of “MUNNA LAL v STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH”
- In this case as discussed by expert teachers from Law Coaching in Jaipur, the court emphasized that flaws in the investigation procedure by itself do not provide a good reason for acquittal.
- It declared that, in spite of any errors committed by the investigating officer, the court must carefully consider the prosecution’s evidence.
- The Court carefully examined the evidence presented by the prosecution, giving no weight to the Investigating Officer’s careless or inadequate investigation.
- The court came to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to prove the prisoners guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. They were therefore granted the benefit of the doubt. As a result, the court cleared the guilty and reversed the decisions made by the Allahabad High Court and Trial Court.
The landmark ruling of “JABIR v STATE OF UTTARAKHAND”
- The prosecution must prove each circumstance and their linkages beyond a reasonable doubt in situations requiring circumstantial evidence, in accordance with the Supreme Court.
- The combination of these facts ought to provide an uninterrupted trail of proof that inexorably points to the accused’s guilt.
- The Court emphasized according to the discussions of teachers at institute of Coaching for CLAT that the circumstances must be so strong as to leave no room for doubt that the accused perpetrated the act, most likely, and that the evidence clearly indicates their guilt.
- A defendant cannot be found guilty based just on the evidence of their last appearance.
The landmark ruling of “AGNES MICHALE v CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH”
- In this case as discussed by the teachers in the CLAT exam Coaching institute, the petition was filed because the petitioner’s privacy was violated by a neighbor’s CCTV camera pointed toward their home. The camera’s removal is requested in the petition. The court rules that it is improper to use the child as evidence of the mother’s adulterous relationship.
- The Court acknowledged the necessity of preventing people from surreptitiously installing video surveillance for security purposes in order to snoop on their neighbors’ activities.
- The State Police Chief was instructed by the Court to create regulations for CCTV installation of cameras after consulting with the Kerala Government.
For CLAT 2024, try to concentrate on important rulings that have a big influence on the Indian Constitution. Recognize the logic behind the rulings as well as the particulars of the case. Particularly for important topics like constitutional law, study materials should be in line with the syllabus. Make use of peers’ and mentors’ assistance to make critical decisions quickly. The CLAT 2024 exam frequently favors classic instances over more current ones, according to historical tendencies. Be ready for a range of questions, from straightforward recall questions to intricate legal application questions.