Unorthodox Landmark Cases Every CLAT 2026 Aspirant Must Know

If you are preparing for CLAT Exam then you must know about the list of constitutional and criminal law cases. But you must note that you will have to have an idea about unorthodox cases that might not figure in the preparation checklist, but you must know to stand out from the rest. The unorthodox cases help in shaping ideas and build thought processes. These judgments test not only your memory but also your ability to connect law with society. You can have an advantage by understanding these unique cases because they bring fresh perspectives into your preparation for the CLAT Exam .

Also Read: Time Management Tricks for CLAT 2026 Exam

Why Unorthodox Cases are Important for CLAT Students

CLAT Exam not only tests your ability to remember things but also your temperament to correlate judicial proceedings while practicing law. Legal aptitude questions are often asked to understand the spirit of law and its interpretation. Unorthodox cases are significant because they help you realize how courts think differently in unusual situations. The landmark judgements are usually very significant because a new dimension to law has been defined by those verdicts. If you have an idea about unorthodox cases, then you can sharpen your reasoning, stay curious, and apply concepts more flexibly during your exam. Also, having an idea about these cases makes you feel more confident when discussing law in group interactions or interviews after CLAT. You can look at the unorthodox landmark cases as mentioned below:

The Trial of KM Nanavati (1962): Jury Controversy

The KM Nanavati case ended the jury system in India, and it is one of the strangest trials in Indian criminal law. A naval officer stood accused of killing his wife’s lover. The jury’s verdict of declaring him ‘not guilty’ shocked the nation as public opinion was heavily influenced by the media. However, the High Court overturned the verdict later which led to the abolition of jury trials in India. As a student, you must know about this case as it highlights how law adapts when systems fail, and why judicial proceedings must remain free from popularity pressures.

Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): The ‘Right to Livelihood’

‘Right to Life’ cases are very popular and often discussed in the court of law to support Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, but this judgment extended Article 21 to cover the right to livelihood. Street vendors and pavement inhabitants challenged demolition drives by Bombay Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court found out that depriving people of shelter and income was unconstitutional and the demolition drive was stopped. If you are preparing for CLAT, then this judgement expands your understanding of how rights evolve with human needs. This also informs that there is nothing beyond humanity and courts interpret the Constitution beyond textbook definitions.

NALSA vs Union of India (2014): Recognising the Third Gender

While preparing for CLAT, you will come across thousands of cases that focus on equality and reservation, but NALSA is different. It was historic because for the first time, the Honourable Supreme Court recognised transgender persons as the ‘third gender,’ and gave them equal rights and dignity under the Constitution. Through this case, one can understand that law is not static, and it has a human face, and it will stand for the things that might have been previously ignored.

Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015): Freedom of Expression and the Internet

One of the most phenomenal judgements that highlights the freedom of expression in the digital age. Section 66A of the IT Act once criminalised online posts considered ‘offensive’, but the thin line to define offensive was always missing. This case struck it down and the court ruled that vague restrictions threatened free speech. This happened because Shreya Singhal was arrested for writing her opinion on social media after the death of Mr. Balasaheb Thackrey. You must know this for your preparation and think about how law interacts with technology.

Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan (1997): Workplace Harassment Guidelines

This unorthodox landmark judgement briefs that there is nothing beyond the safety and security of citizens. Instead of waiting for Parliament to pass a law, the Supreme Court issued guidelines to handle sexual harassment cases at workplaces. Popularly known as the Vishaka Guidelines, this judgment provided a safer and more equal workplace culture in India. For you, this case highlights the judiciary’s proactive role and helps you understand how public interest litigation (PIL) creates immediate impact.

Also Read: CLAT 2026 Registration Underway

How You Can Use Unorthodox Landmark Cases in CLAT

• When you read questions in the form of comprehension passages, then you will be able to think beyond common judgments. Relating to unorthodox cases gives you deeper insight.
• You can use these judgments in essay writing or post-exam interviews to showcase originality.
• Knowing these cases can help you train your brain to connect diverse topics. You will also have perspectives to solve issues like gender, technology, and livelihood with constitutional rights.

Related Articles: