Leading Cases for Advocate on Record (AOR) Exam: Article and Short Notes

The Advocate on Record (AOR) examination conducted by the Supreme Court of India includes a dedicated paper on Leading Cases, requiring candidates to study landmark judgments that have shaped Indian constitutional, civil, criminal, and administrative law.

The Supreme Court provides a list of leading cases, along with their citations in the Supreme Court Reports (SCR) and equivalent citations in other legal journals such as SCC, AIR, and SCALE.

This article and the accompanying short notes provide an overview of the significance of these cases for the AOR exam and concise summaries of the listed cases to aid preparation.

Importance of Leading Cases for the AOR Exam

The Leading Cases paper (Paper IV) tests candidates’ ability to understand, analyze, and apply landmark judgments in hypothetical scenarios. Candidates must:

  • Study the headnotes of the listed cases, which are provided in the examination hall (to be returned after the exam).

  • Understand the ratio decidendi (legal principle) and obiter dicta (observations) of each case.

  • Be prepared to write case briefs and apply the principles to practical legal questions.

  • Refer to reliable sources like SCC Online, Supreme Court Reports, or AIR for full-text judgments and commentaries.

The cases cover a wide range of legal domains, including constitutional law, fundamental rights, judicial review, public interest litigation (PIL), and professional ethics, making them critical for an AOR’s practice in the Supreme Court.

Preparation Tips

  • Focus on Key Issues: Identify the core legal issue, facts, and the court’s reasoning in each case.

  • Practice Case Briefs: Write concise summaries (facts, issues, decision, reasoning) for each case to improve retention and answer structuring.

  • Use Authentic Sources: Rely on SCC, AIR, or Supreme Court Reports for accurate citations and full texts.

  • Stay Updated: Be aware of subsequent cases that may have clarified or overruled the listed judgments.

  • Time Management: Practice answering questions within the three-hour exam duration, ensuring clarity and brevity.

Below are short notes on the listed leading cases, tailored for AOR exam preparation. Each note includes the case name, citation, key issue, and a brief summary of the decision.

Short Notes on Leading Cases for AOR Exam

  1. His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala

    • Citations: [1973] Suppl. SCR 1, (1973) 4 SCC 225

    • Key Issue: Can Parliament amend the Constitution to alter its basic structure?

    • Summary: The Supreme Court established the basic structure doctrine, holding that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not absolute and cannot alter its basic features (e.g., judicial review, federalism, secularism). This landmark case limited the scope of constitutional amendments.

  2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

    • Citations: [1978] 2 SCR 621, (1978) 1 SCC 248

    • Key Issue: Does the right to personal liberty under Article 21 include procedural fairness?

    • Summary: The court expanded the scope of Article 21, holding that the right to life and personal liberty includes due process and fairness. The passport impoundment in this case was deemed arbitrary, emphasizing the need for procedures to be just, fair, and reasonable.

  3. Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

    • Citations: [1981] 1 SCR 206, (1980) 3 SCC 625

    • Key Issue: Can Parliament curtail judicial review through constitutional amendments?

    • Summary: The court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment Act, reinforcing the basic structure doctrine. It held that judicial review and the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles are part of the Constitution’s basic structure.

  4. Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

    • Citations: [1985] 1 SCR 88, (1984) 4 SCC 116

    • Key Issue: What is the standard for proving guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence?

    • Summary: The court laid down five golden principles for proving guilt in circumstantial evidence cases, emphasizing that circumstances must be fully established, point conclusively to guilt, and exclude all other hypotheses.

  5. A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr.

    • Citations: [1988] 1 Suppl. SCR 1, (1988) 2 SCC 602

    • Key Issue: Can a court’s directions violate fundamental rights?

    • Summary: The court held that transferring a corruption case against Antulay to a special court without a hearing violated his right to equality under Article 14. It emphasized that judicial directions must comply with constitutional principles.

  6. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others

    • Citations: [1992] 1 SCR 686, (1992) Supp 2 SCC 651

    • Key Issue: Is the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule constitutionally valid?

    • Summary: The court upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule but struck down Paragraph 7, which barred judicial review, as it violated the basic structure doctrine. Decisions of the Speaker on defection were held subject to judicial review.

  7. Indra Sawhney and Ors. Etc. v. Union of India and Ors. Etc.

    • Citations: [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217

    • Key Issue: Is reservation for backward classes under Article 16(4) permissible?

    • Summary: The court upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs in public employment but struck down the 10% reservation for economically backward classes. It introduced the creamy layer concept and capped reservations at 50%.

  8. S.R. Bommai and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

    • Citations: [1994] 2 SCR 644, (1994) 3 SCC 1

    • Key Issue: What is the scope of judicial review over President’s Rule under Article 356?

    • Summary: The court held that the imposition of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review. It emphasized federalism and secularism as part of the basic structure, limiting arbitrary dismissal of state governments.

  9. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others

    • Citations: [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 261, (1995) 1 SCC 400

    • Key Issue: Can tribunals replace the jurisdiction of High Courts?

    • Summary: The court held that the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be ousted by tribunals. Judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court is part of the basic structure.

  10. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Ors.

    • Citations: [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 241, (1996) 5 SCC 647

    • Key Issue: How should environmental protection be balanced with development?

    • Summary: The court introduced the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle in Indian environmental law, directing the closure of polluting tanneries and emphasizing sustainable development.

  11. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal

    • Citations: [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284, (1997) 1 SCC 416

    • Key Issue: How can custodial violence be prevented?

    • Summary: The court issued 11 guidelines to prevent custodial torture and deaths, emphasizing the protection of Article 21 rights in custody and the need for accountability of police officials.

  12. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Etc. v. Union of India Etc.

    • Citations: [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 585, (1997) 5 SCC 536

    • Key Issue: What is the scope of refund claims under excise and customs laws?

    • Summary: The court clarified the doctrine of unjust enrichment, holding that refunds of taxes cannot be claimed if the burden was passed to consumers, ensuring fairness in tax litigation.

  13. Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

    • Citations: [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 404, (1997) 6 SCC 241

    • Key Issue: How can workplace sexual harassment be addressed in the absence of legislation?

    • Summary: The court laid down the Vishaka Guidelines, defining sexual harassment and mandating preventive measures in workplaces, relying on Article 21 and international conventions.

  14. Githa Hariharan and Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India and Anr.

    • Citations: [1999] 1 SCR 669, (1999) 2 SCC 228

    • Key Issue: Can a mother be considered a natural guardian under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act?

    • Summary: The court held that the mother can act as a natural guardian during the father’s lifetime, striking down gender-discriminatory provisions and promoting equality under Article 14.

  15. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Anr.

    • Citations: [2002] 2 SCR 1006, (2002) 4 SCC 388

    • Key Issue: Can a curative petition be filed after the dismissal of a review petition?

    • Summary: The court introduced the concept of curative petitions, allowing a final remedy in cases of gross miscarriage of justice, subject to strict conditions, to uphold Article 21.

  16. Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Ors. v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors.

    • Citations: [2002] 3 SCR 100, (2002) 5 SCC 111

    • Key Issue: What constitutes a “State” under Article 12?

    • Summary: The court expanded the definition of “State” to include government-controlled entities, holding that such bodies are subject to fundamental rights obligations.

  17. P. Rama Chandra Rao v. State of Karnataka

    • Citations: [2002] 3 SCR 60, (2002) 4 SCC 578

    • Key Issue: Can the judiciary fix time limits for statutory authorities?

    • Summary: The court held that fixing time limits for statutory functions is a legislative task, and courts cannot encroach upon this domain, reinforcing separation of powers.

  18. T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.

    • Citations: [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 587, (2002) 8 SCC 481, AIR 2003 SC 355

    • Key Issue: What is the scope of autonomy for private educational institutions?

    • Summary: The court upheld the autonomy of private unaided institutions in admissions and fee structures but allowed reasonable regulations to ensure educational standards.

  19. P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra

    • Citations: (2004) 8 SCC 139

    • Key Issue: Can the State impose quotas in private unaided educational institutions?

    • Summary: The court held that private unaided institutions have autonomy in admissions, and the State cannot impose reservations, clarifying the T.M.A. Pai ruling.

  20. Technip SA v. SMS Holding (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors.

    • Citations: [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 223, (2005) 5 SCC 465

    • Key Issue: What is the scope of arbitration agreements in international contracts?

    • Summary: The court emphasized the enforceability of arbitration clauses and the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitration proceedings.

  21. M/s. S.B.P. and Co. v. M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr.

    • Citations: [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 688, (2005) 8 SCC 618

    • Key Issue: What is the role of courts in appointing arbitrators under the Arbitration Act?

    • Summary: The court held that the Chief Justice’s power to appoint arbitrators under Section 11 is a judicial function, subject to review, ensuring fairness in arbitration.

  22. Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.

    • Citations: [2006] 1 SCR 562, (2006) 2 SCC 1

    • Key Issue: Can the dissolution of a state assembly under Article 356 be reviewed?

    • Summary: The court struck down the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly as unconstitutional, reinforcing judicial review over President’s Rule under Article 356.

  23. I.R. Coelho (Dead) By LRs. v. State of Tamil Nadu

    • Citations: [2007] 1 SCR 706, (2007) 2 SCC 1

    • Key Issue: Can laws placed in the Ninth Schedule be immune from judicial review?

    • Summary: The court held that laws in the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure, reinforcing the Kesavananda Bharati doctrine.

  24. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India & Ors.

    • Citations: [2008] 6 SCR 262, (2008) 5 SCC 511

    • Key Issue: How can public accountability be ensured in government actions?

    • Summary: The court addressed issues of transparency in public administration, emphasizing the role of PILs in promoting accountability.

  25. State of West Bengal & Ors. v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors.

    • Citations: [2010] 2 SCR 979, (2010) 3 SCC 571

    • Key Issue: Can the High Court direct CBI investigation in state matters?

    • Summary: The court held that High Courts can direct CBI investigations in exceptional cases to ensure justice, balancing federalism with judicial oversight.

  26. Smt. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka

    • Citations: [2010] 5 SCR 381, (2010) 7 SCC 263

    • Key Issue: Are narco-analysis and polygraph tests constitutional?

    • Summary: The court held that involuntary narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests violate Article 20(3) (self-incrimination) and Article 21 (privacy).

  27. Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 [Under Article 143(1)]

    • Citations: [2012] 9 SCR 311, (2012) 10 SCC 1

    • Key Issue: What is the scope of allocation of natural resources?

    • Summary: The court clarified that auctions are not the only method for allocating natural resources, and the State must follow a fair and transparent process.

  28. Republic of Italy and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

    • Citations: [2013] 4 SCR 595, (2013) 4 SCC 721

    • Key Issue: Does India have jurisdiction over foreign nationals in maritime disputes?

    • Summary: The court held that India had jurisdiction over Italian marines in the Enrica Lexie case, balancing international law with national sovereignty.

  29. Novartis AG v. Union of India & Others

    • Citations: [2013] 13 SCR 148, (2013) 6 SCC 1

    • Key Issue: What constitutes patentability under the Patents Act?

    • Summary: The court rejected Novartis’ patent claim for Glivec, clarifying the scope of “invention” and “efficacy” under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.

  30. Dr. Balram Prasad v. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors.

    • Citations: [2013] 12 SCR 30, (2014) 1 SCC 384

    • Key Issue: How should medical negligence compensation be calculated?

    • Summary: The court awarded a high compensation for medical negligence, emphasizing the need for fair and just remedies in consumer protection cases.

  31. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and Ors.

    • Citations: [2013] 14 SCR 713, (2014) 2 SCC 1

    • Key Issue: Is registration of an FIR mandatory for cognizable offences?

    • Summary: The court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory for cognizable offences, with preliminary inquiries permissible only in exceptional cases.

  32. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and Others

    • Citations: [2014] 5 SCR 119, (2014) 5 SCC 438

    • Key Issue: Do transgender persons have constitutional rights?

    • Summary: The court recognized transgender persons as a third gender, granting them rights under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21, including self-identification of gender.

  33. Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

    • Citations: [2014] 11 SCR 712, (2014) 8 SCC 1

    • Key Issue: Does the Right to Education Act apply to minority institutions?

    • Summary: The court held that the Right to Education Act does not apply to minority educational institutions, protecting their autonomy under Article 30.

  34. M/s. Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

    • Citations: [2015] 1 SCR 627, (2015) 4 SCC 136

    • Key Issue: What are the principles for awarding damages in contract breaches?

    • Summary: The court clarified the principles of awarding damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act, emphasizing actual loss and mitigation.

  35. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

    • Citations: [2015] 5 SCR 963, (2015) 5 SCC 1

    • Key Issue: Is Section 66A of the IT Act constitutional?

    • Summary: The court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional for violating free speech under Article 19(1)(a), emphasizing the need for clear and defined laws.

  36. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another v. Union of India

    • Citations: [2015] 13 SCR 1, 2016 (5) SCC 1

    • Key Issue: Is the NJAC constitutional?

    • Summary: The court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) as unconstitutional, upholding the collegium system for judicial appointments.

  37. Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors.

    • Citations: [2015] 14 SCR 613, 2016 (7) SCC 1

    • Key Issue: Can courts impose life imprisonment without remission?

    • Summary: The court upheld the power of courts to impose life sentences without remission in heinous crimes, balancing sentencing discretion with justice.

  38. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. EMCO Limited & Others

    • Citations: [2016] 1 SCR 857, (2016) 11 SCC 182

    • Key Issue: What is the scope of tariff regulation in electricity contracts?

    • Summary: The court clarified the role of regulatory commissions in fixing tariffs, ensuring fairness in electricity supply contracts.

  39. Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors.

    • Citations: [2017] 6 SCR 1, (2017) 6 SCC 1

    • Key Issue: What is the standard for death penalty in rape cases?

    • Summary: The court upheld the death penalty in the Nirbhaya case, applying the “rarest of rare” doctrine for heinous crimes.

  40. Excel Crop Care Limited v. Competition Commission of India and Another

    • Citations: [2017] 5 SCR 901, (2017) 8 SCC 47

    • Key Issue: How is “relevant market” defined under competition law?

    • Summary: The court clarified the definition of “relevant market” for assessing anti-competitive practices under the Competition Act.

  41. Common Cause v. Union of India and Ors.

    • Citations: [2017] 13 SCR 361, (2017) 9 SCC 499

    • Key Issue: Is passive euthanasia permissible?

    • Summary: The court recognized the right to die with dignity under Article 21, allowing passive euthanasia with strict guidelines.

  42. Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Others

    • Citations: [2017] 9 SCR 797, (2017) 9 SCC 1

    • Key Issue: Is triple talaq constitutional?

    • Summary: The court declared triple talaq unconstitutional, holding it violative of Articles 14 and 21 due to its arbitrary nature.

  43. Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

    • Citations: [2017] 10 SCR 569, (2017) 10 SCC 1

    • Key Issue: Is the right to privacy a fundamental right?

    • Summary: The court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, with implications for data protection and personal autonomy.

  44. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India & Another

    • Citations: [2018] 6 SCR 1, 2018 (5) SCC 1

    • Key Issue: Can advance directives for euthanasia be enforced?

    • Summary: The court upheld the validity of advance directives for passive euthanasia, reinforcing the right to die with dignity.

  45. Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and Anr. v. BVG India Limited and Ors.

    • Citations: [2018] 6 SCR 861, [2018 (5) SCC 462]

    • Key Issue: What is the scope of judicial review in tender disputes?

    • Summary: The court limited judicial interference in tender processes, emphasizing fairness and transparency in public contracts.

  46. Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & Others

    • Citations: [2018] 3 SCR 770, (2018) 7 SCC 192

    • Key Issue: How can honour killings be prevented?

    • Summary: The court issued guidelines to prevent honour killings, emphasizing the protection of individual choice in marriages under Article 21.

  47. Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice

    • Citations: [2018] 7 SCR 379, (2018) 10 SCC 1

    • Key Issue: Is Section 377 of the IPC constitutional?

    • Summary: The court decriminalized consensual same-sex relations, striking down parts of Section 377 as violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21.

  48. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

    • Citations: [2018] 8 SCR 1, (2019) 1 SCC 1

    • Key Issue: Is the Aadhaar Act constitutional?

    • Summary: The court upheld the Aadhaar Act with restrictions, balancing privacy rights with state interests in welfare schemes.

  49. Jarnail Singh & Others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others

    • Citations: [2018] 10 SCR 663, (2018) 10 SCC 396

    • Key Issue: Can the creamy layer apply to SC/ST reservations?

    • Summary: The court extended the creamy layer principle to SC/ST reservations, ensuring fairness in affirmative action.

  50. Joseph Shine v. Union of India

    • Citations: [2018] 11 SCR 765, (2019) 3 SCC 39

    • Key Issue: Is adultery under Section 497 IPC constitutional?

    • Summary: The court struck down Section 497 as unconstitutional, holding it discriminatory and violative of gender equality under Article 14.

  51. Competition Commission of India v. Bharti Airtel Limited and Others

    • Citations: [2018] 14 SCR 489, (2019) 2 SCC 521

    • Key Issue: What is the jurisdiction of CCI in telecom disputes?

    • Summary: The court clarified the jurisdiction of the Competition Commission of India, emphasizing coordination with sector-specific regulators.

  52. Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

    • Citations: [2019] 3 SCR 535, (2019) 4 SCC 17

    • Key Issue: Is the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code constitutional?

    • Summary: The court upheld the IBC, affirming its role in promoting economic efficiency and creditor rights.

  53. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India

    • Citations: [2019] 7 SCR 522, 2019 (15) SCC 131

    • Key Issue: What is the scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards?

    • Summary: The court limited judicial interference in arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, promoting arbitration autonomy.

  54. Dr. Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India and Another

    • Citations: [2019] 12 SCR 30, 2019 SCC Online SC 1144

    • Key Issue: How can the rights of senior citizens be protected?

    • Summary: The court issued directions to implement the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, emphasizing Article 21 protections.

  55. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited and Ors.

    • Citations: [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1, (2020) 6 SCC 1

    • Key Issue: Is the Finance Act’s tribunal provisions constitutional?

    • Summary: The court struck down parts of the Finance Act, 2017, relating to tribunal appointments, reinforcing judicial independence.

  56. Central Public Information Officer Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal

    • Citations: [2019] 16 S.C.R. 424, (2020) 5 SCC 481

    • Key Issue: Is the judiciary subject to the RTI Act?

    • Summary: The court held that the judiciary is subject to the RTI Act, balancing transparency with judicial independence.

  57. Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited v. Satish Kumar Gupta and Others

    • Citations: [2019] 16 S.C.R. 275, (2020) 8 SCC 531

    • Key Issue: What is the role of the Committee of Creditors in IBC proceedings?

    • Summary: The court clarified the primacy of the Committee of Creditors in insolvency resolution, upholding the IBC framework.

  58. M/s Shanti Conductors Private Limited v. Assam State Electricity Board and Others

    • Citations: [2019] 16 S.C.R. 252, (2020) 2 SCC 677

    • Key Issue: What is the limitation period for recovery of dues?

    • Summary: The court clarified the application of limitation periods in recovery suits, ensuring timely claims.

  59. Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. The Hon’ble Speaker Manipur Legislative Assembly & Ors.

    • Citations: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 132, 2020 (2) SCALE 329

    • Key Issue: Can courts review Speaker’s decisions on disqualification?

    • Summary: The court held that Speaker’s decisions on disqualification are subject to judicial review, ensuring fairness in anti-defection proceedings.

  60. Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another

    • Citations: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 1, (2020) 5 SCC 1

    • Key Issue: What is the scope of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC?

    • Summary: The court clarified that anticipatory bail can be time-bound and subject to conditions, balancing liberty with justice.

  61. Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

    • Citations: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 161, (2020) 7 SCC 401

    • Key Issue: What is the eligibility for judicial service appointments?

    • Summary: The court clarified eligibility criteria for judicial service, emphasizing merit and fairness in appointments.

  62. Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India

    • Citations: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 297, (2020) 10 SCC 274

    • Key Issue: Is the RBI’s ban on cryptocurrency transactions valid?

    • Summary: The court struck down the RBI’s blanket ban on cryptocurrencies, holding it disproportionate and violative of Article 19(1)(g).

  63. Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others Etc.

    • Citations: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1, (2020) 8 SCC 129

    • Key Issue: What constitutes “acquisition” under the Land Acquisition Act?

    • Summary: The court clarified the requirements for land acquisition, including payment of compensation and possession, under the 2013 Act.

  64. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr.

    • Citations: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 246, 2020 (13) SCALE 443

    • Key Issue: Are tribunal appointment rules constitutional?

    • Summary: The court struck down tribunal appointment rules that undermined judicial independence, reinforcing the separation of powers.

Conclusion

The listed leading cases are foundational to understanding the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence and are critical for the AOR exam. Candidates should focus on the legal principles, their application, and their impact on constitutional and statutory interpretation.

By mastering these cases, AOR aspirants can demonstrate their ability to navigate complex legal issues in Supreme Court practice. For further study, refer to SCC Online, Supreme Court Reports, or consult the Supreme Court’s AOR Examination Branch