Bihar Judicial Service 2026 Prelims is T-22 days away (BPSC has scheduled the paper for 30 May 2026). At this stage, fresh reading hurts more than it helps. What pays off is revision of landmark Supreme Court judgments — because every PCS-J paper, from Bihar to UP to Rajasthan to MP, leans on the same 20–30 rulings. This post curates the Top 25 Supreme Court judgments every Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) aspirant must revise before walking into the exam hall. We have ranked them by frequency, paired each with the ratio, and added a quick-revision MCQ at the end.
Why Landmark Judgments Decide Your Prelims Score
The Bihar Judiciary Prelims has 150 marks of Law and 100 marks of General Knowledge. Inside the Law paper, Constitutional Law alone contributes 30–35 questions across recent cycles. Add Evidence, CrPC/BNSS, IPC/BNS, and CPC, and case-law-based MCQs typically deliver 40 to 55 marks. These are not memory questions; they are recognition questions — if you have read the ratio once and seen the headline twice, you will tick the right option in under 30 seconds.
Equally important, BPSC has, since the 31st Bihar Judiciary, openly tested rulings delivered in the preceding 18 months. That means rulings from January 2025 through April 2026 are fair game on 30 May 2026. If you skip current jurisprudence and rely only on a 2015 case digest, you will lose 8 to 10 sure marks. The good news: the universe is finite. Twenty-five rulings, revised well, will cover you across Bihar Judiciary, UP PCS-J, Delhi Judicial Service, Rajasthan Judicial Service, and Jharkhand JS in 2026.
Pair this revision with our T-19 strategy guide and BNS vs IPC mapping for a complete final-stretch plan.
Constitutional Law: 8 Must-Revise Judgments
1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (8 April 2025) — Two-judge bench (Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan) held that the Governor cannot exercise a “pocket veto” under Article 200. Reservation of a Bill after the Assembly re-passes it is unconstitutional. Bench laid down indicative timelines (one to three months) for gubernatorial action. Note: A five-judge Constitution Bench in the Presidential Reference (20 November 2025) later held that the President and Governors are not bound by judicially fixed timelines and that decisions under Articles 200/201 are not justiciable, though courts can intervene against “prolonged, unexplained, indefinite inaction.” Both rulings are testable.
2. M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (21 March 2024, reported 2024) — Three-judge bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud recognised, for the first time, the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change as an integral facet of Article 21 (right to life) and Article 14 (right to equality). Linked to the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard.
3. Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (25 July 2024) — Nine-judge Constitution Bench (8:1) held that royalty under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is not a tax. States have legislative competence to tax mineral-bearing lands under Entry 49 of List II. The 14 August 2024 order on retrospectivity is equally important: demands apply only post 1 April 2005, payable in 12 staggered instalments from 1 April 2026.
4. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (Electoral Bonds, 15 February 2024) — Five-judge bench struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme as violative of Article 19(1)(a). Right to information of voters about political funding outweighs the donor’s right to informational privacy. Ratio: anonymous corporate donations are unconstitutional.
5. In Re Article 370 (11 December 2023) — Five-judge bench unanimously upheld the abrogation of Article 370. Held that Article 370 was a temporary provision and J&K did not retain internal sovereignty after accession. Still routinely tested.
6. Supriyo v. Union of India (17 October 2023) — Five-judge bench held that there is no fundamental right to marry; recognition of same-sex marriage is for Parliament. Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships can marry under existing law.
7. Sub-Classification of Scheduled Castes (1 August 2024) — Seven-judge bench (6:1) in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh held that States can sub-classify SCs/STs for granting reservation, overruling E.V. Chinnaiah (2004).
8. In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures (13 November 2024) — Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan issued pan-India guidelines against “bulldozer justice.” Mandatory 15-day prior notice, personal hearing, reasoned order, video-recorded demolition, and digital portal. Non-compliance attracts contempt. Properties cannot be demolished merely because the occupant is an accused.
Criminal Law and Procedure: 6 Rulings to Revisit
9. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), reaffirmed 2025 — The 2025 reaffirmation reiterated that narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests cannot be conducted without the consent of the accused, given Article 20(3) protection against self-incrimination. Often paired in MCQs with Section 161 BNSS.
10. Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India (Bulldozer Demolitions, 2024) — Companion ruling underlining the right to shelter under Article 21 and proportionality in administrative action.
11. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) — Evergreen on Section 41 CrPC (now Section 35 BNSS) — police must record reasons before arresting for offences punishable up to seven years. Tested every cycle in Bihar.
12. Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2013) — FIR registration under Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS) is mandatory where information discloses a cognizable offence; preliminary inquiry permitted only in seven categories.
13. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) — Section 377 IPC (now absent from BNS in this form) decriminalised qua consensual same-sex acts. Note the BNS departure for the mapping question.
14. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) — Nine-judge bench: right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. Foundation case for every data, surveillance, and consent MCQ.
Civil Law, Contract and Specific Relief: 5 Rulings
15. Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. (30 April 2025) — Five-judge Constitution Bench (4:1) held that courts under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have a limited power to modify an arbitral award — severability of invalid portions, correction of clerical/computational errors, and modification of post-award interest. Pair this with our Specific Relief Act revision.
16. Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (2020) — Five-judge bench overruled Pune Municipal (2014) on Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
17. Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2020) — Four-fold test for arbitrability of disputes; landlord-tenant disputes under Transfer of Property Act are arbitrable.
18. Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (2023) — Five-judge bench upheld the Group of Companies doctrine in Indian arbitration jurisprudence.
19. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) — Section 497 IPC (adultery) struck down. Important under BNS mapping where the offence is dropped.
Service, Judiciary and Administrative Law: 4 Rulings
20. All India Judges Association v. Union of India (20 May 2025) — Reinstated the mandatory three-year legal practice requirement for Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) eligibility, reversing the 2002 relaxation. Law-clerk experience counts. Prospective only — does not affect ongoing 2026 recruitment cycles, including the 33rd BJS. Directly relevant for every aspirant in this room.
21. All India Judges Association on Inter Se Seniority (2025) — Mandatory guidelines on determining seniority between officers appointed from different sources to Higher Judicial Services.
22. Anjum Kadari v. Union of India (5 November 2024) — Three-judge bench upheld the constitutional validity of the UP Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (except its degree-conferring provisions). Important on secularism and Article 14.
23. Sita Soren v. Union of India (4 March 2024) — Seven-judge bench overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998). Legislators do not enjoy immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) for bribery in connection with votes or speeches.
Evidence, Family Law, and Catch-All Cases
24. Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) — Five-judge bench held that the Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage on grounds of irretrievable breakdown using Article 142, even though the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not list it as a ground. Pair with our Hindu Marriage Act revision.
25. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2 March 2023) — Five-judge bench on the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners — committee of PM, LoP, and CJI, until Parliament legislates. Subsequently superseded by the CEC and ECs Act, 2023, but the constitutional reasoning is testable.
How to Revise These 25 in T-22 Days
Do not read the full judgment. For each case, memorise five things only: case name, year, bench size, ratio in one line, and the article/section involved. That is 125 data points across 25 cases. Spread over 22 days, that is roughly six cases per day with two buffer days for cross-revision. Use spaced repetition: revise Days 1–7 again on Day 8, Days 8–14 again on Day 15, and so on. Take a five-MCQ test every night using past PCS-J questions. By the morning of 30 May, recognition will be automatic.
Read this alongside the official Judiciary Gurukul revision tracker. If you have not yet attempted our mock series, the final two papers are calibrated to BJS difficulty — book them this week.
5-Question Quick MCQ — Constitution and Law
- Which of the following correctly states the ratio of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (April 2025)?
(a) The Governor enjoys an absolute pocket veto under Article 200
(b) Reservation of a Bill after it is re-passed by the Assembly is unconstitutional
(c) Article 200 confers an unreviewable discretion
(d) Both President and Governor must decide within 30 days
Answer: (b) - In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court recognised the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change under:
(a) Article 19 and Article 21
(b) Article 14 and Article 21
(c) Article 21 only
(d) Article 48A and Article 51A(g) only
Answer: (b) - The Mineral Area Development Authority judgment (July 2024) was decided by a bench of:
(a) Five judges, 4:1
(b) Seven judges, 6:1
(c) Nine judges, 8:1
(d) Eleven judges, unanimous
Answer: (c) - In Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies (April 2025), the Supreme Court held that under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, courts have:
(a) No power to modify an arbitral award
(b) Unlimited power to modify an award on merits
(c) Limited power to modify — severability, clerical errors, and post-award interest
(d) Power to substitute the award entirely
Answer: (c) - The three-year legal practice requirement reinstated in All India Judges Association (May 2025) is applicable to:
(a) Ongoing 2026 recruitment cycles including the 33rd BJS
(b) All civil judges already appointed
(c) Only future recruitment cycles initiated after the date of judgment
(d) Only the High Courts in southern States
Answer: (c)
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. How many landmark judgments should I revise for Bihar Judiciary 2026 Prelims?
Twenty-five well-revised judgments cover 90% of the case-law MCQs in any PCS-J paper. Add five Bihar-specific or High Court rulings on local statutes if time permits. Quality beats quantity at T-22.
Q2. Will the November 2025 Presidential Reference on Articles 200 and 201 be tested instead of the April 2025 Tamil Nadu judgment?
Both are testable. The April 2025 judgment is binding precedent on the parties; the November 2025 advisory opinion clarified the constitutional position prospectively. BPSC has historically tested both the ratio and the subsequent clarification. Memorise the holding of each in one line.
Q3. Does the three-year practice rule from All India Judges Association (May 2025) affect my 33rd BJS application?
No. The Supreme Court expressly clarified that the rule applies prospectively — only to recruitment cycles initiated after 20 May 2025. The 33rd BJS, notified earlier, is unaffected. Subsequent cycles will require three years of practice from the date of provisional enrolment.
Q4. Where can I find a one-page summary of all 25 rulings?
We have published a printable revision sheet inside the Judiciary Gurukul members’ area. Pair it with the daily revision tracker and the final mock series for a complete T-22 to T-0 plan.
Q5. Are 2023 judgments still relevant for the May 2026 Prelims?
Yes. BPSC’s testing window is roughly 18–24 months, but evergreen Constitution Bench rulings such as Article 370, Supriyo, Sita Soren, and Anoop Baranwal remain in active rotation. Do not ignore them.
