CLAT 2025 Coach: Unsung Courtroom Battles Every Aspirant Should Know

The date for the CLAT 2025 entrance exam has been declared! As December 7, 2025 approaches, you must be brushing up your knowledge on some of the landmark judgements from history. You must’ve mastered the heavy hitters like the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) and the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) among others. However the pool of such landmark judgements is huge. To help you expand your knowledge base on this subject, Hitbullseye has curated a list of five lesser known but crucial and intriguing landmark judgements. These under-the-radar legal battles will help you educate, analyze and inspire yourself. 

“Carnal intercourse against the order of nature” was criminalized under Section 377 of IPC. Interestingly, Dancer Navtej Singh Johar and fellow activists challenged the constitution with the aim of targeting consensual same sex relations. They built on the 2017 privacy judgement and argued that it violated Article 14 citing Equality, 15 for Non-Discrimination, 19 for Expression and 21 mentioning Life and Liberty. 

In July 2018, the five judge bench heard the horrifying stories and on September 6 the same year, the court decriminalized consensual adult same-sex acts and affirmed that sexual orientation is innate and is protected by dignity and privacy. 

A Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking guidelines on passive euthanasia and living wills. Building on prior debates (like that of Aruna Shanbaug in 2011), petitioners argued that the prolonged artificial life support violates the right to life with dignity (article 21), especially for patients who are terminally ill. 

In order to attend to the deliberate attempt of life with autonomy, a five bench judge led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was appointed. After courtroom considerations, a verdict was passed on March 9, 2018 legalizing passive euthanasia. Since then, withdrawing life support with consent was validated and allowed directives for refusing treatment. The “right to die with dignity” was affirmed, however, clearly distinguishing active euthanasia (which is still illegal) from passive euthanasia. 

In 2012, a petition was filed with the motive of seeking third-gender status and affirming action. National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) along with transgender activists challenged legal recognition beyond binary norms and raised their voice expressing discrimination in education, employment and healthcare. Article 14 citing equality, 15 for non-discrimination and 21 for dignity came into question and competence. 

A two-bench judge including Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan was appointed to examine the global precedents and expert inputs. Finally, on April 15, 2014, the gender diversity saw power and transgender people (including hijras) were declared to be the “third gender”. Additionally, self identification without medical intervention was legalized and enforced reservations as socially/economically backward classes, protecting against discrimination. The verdict successfully filled a constitutional void, affirming gender identity as a fundamental right. 

In the traditional times, Hindu men like Jitendra Mathur converted to Islam with the sole purpose of abandoning wives post polygamous marriages. This was done without dissolving prior legal marriages, thus, to legally challenge personal laws, activist Sarla Mudgal filed writ in 1990. The Supreme Court consolidated hundreds of petitions and questioned bigamy under Sections 494 and 495 of IPC along with Article 44’s Uniform Civil Code. 

Finally, after five years, on May 10, 1995, a bench led by Justice Kuldeep Singh held second marriages as legally void. The ruling affirmed that constituting bigamy as conversion does not automatically dissolve Hindu marriages. The Supreme Court also urged Parliament for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to protect women’s rights and promote secular uniformity. 

On a regular school day in Kerala, three schoolchildren, Bijoe, Binu and Bindu Emmanuel were standing respectfully during India’s national anthem but were not singing. When asked, they sighted their reason to be Jehovah’s Witnesses faith which prohibits them to salute earthly symbols. These three children were expelled from their school for taking a firm stand and voicing their beliefs, further sparking a family led petition on the basis of forced patriotism. 

Initially, the case was dismissed by the Kerala High Court, but was taken up by the Supreme Court with respect to Articles 19(1)(a) citing freedom of speech and 25(1) citing religious freedom. The bench, including Justice O.Chinnappa Reddy, heard arguments that debated if singing equated to disrespect. 

On the day of justice, August 11, 1986, the court ruled Bijoe, Binu and Bindu Emmanuel’s expulsion as unconstitutional and emphasized. The verdict was passed on the basis that religious beliefs legally override compelled expression and no legal mandate states that not singing the anthem meant violation of patriotism.