How many case laws are enough for Judiciary Mains? There is no fixed or correct number that can answer this question. The number of case laws a student needs to know ultimately depends upon the nature of the question being asked and the role that a particular judgment plays in answering it.
The first thing a student must understand is that case laws are not meant to be inserted mechanically into every answer. What matters is whether the judgment is relevant to the question and whether the question itself requires the student to identify or discuss a particular judicial decision.
For instance, suppose the question is specifically based on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court concerning the power of a court to modify an arbitral award and the circumstances in which such modification may be permissible. If the question is framed around that particular judgment, then the name of the judgment becomes important. Even if a student does not remember the complete name of the case, it is preferable to identify it in brief by stating, for example, “In the recent judgment in the Gayatri Balasawamy case…” and then explaining the relevant principle. The purpose is to make it clear to the examiner that the student has identified the judgment on which the question is based.
The same principle applies to landmark constitutional judgments. If a question is specifically about the Basic Structure Doctrine, then Kesavananda Bharati becomes an important part of the answer. If a student wants to discusses the Basic Structure of Indian Constitution and skips to mention Kesavananda Bharati, despite the question clearly asks about the judgement, the student may lose marks for missing such a case law.
However, the position changes when the question is purely theoretical. Suppose the question is about the separation of powers as an essential feature of the Indian Constitution. A student may answer the question by explaining the legal principle itself. It is not necessary to mention Kesavananda Bharati merely because the judgment also dealt with the Basic Structure Doctrine. Therefore, weather the case law should be there or not, depends on what the question is asking.
Consider questions based specifically on prominent constitutional judgments. If the question is about Triple Talaq, the relevant judgment should be identified. Similarly, if the question specifically concerns the Sabarimala issue, the student should identify Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala. When the facts, issue or wording of a question clearly indicate that it has been framed around a particular judgment, mentioning that judgment demonstrates that the student has understood the source of the legal principle being tested.
On the other hand, if the question merely asks the student to explain a legal principle and does not require discussion of a particular judgment, mentioning a case law is not mandatory. The student can simply focus on stating the correct legal position, the relevant statutory provisions involved and the necessary principle. The absence of a case law in such an answer, by itself, does not mean that marks will necessarily be deducted.
This leads to an important distinction. If the question is specifically about a judgment and the student fails to identify or discuss that judgment, marks may be lost because an important component of the question has been missed. However, if the question is not specifically about a judgment and the student chooses to mention a relevant case, the case may or may not add value depending on how it is used. Similarly, if the student does not mention the case in a purely theoretical answer, marks should not be lost merely because a case law has not been inserted.
The objective, therefore, should not be to count how many case laws a student can memorise. The focus should be on understanding which judgments are directly connected to which legal propositions and, more importantly, recognising when a question requires the student to identify a particular judgment.
A good Judiciary Mains answer should reflect the source and development of the law wherever it is relevant. When a question is based on a particular judgment, name the judgment. When the question is theoretical, explain the law clearly. Where appropriate, a student can refer to a landmark judgment by saying that “the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment…” even without unnecessarily filling the answer with case names.
Ultimately, there is no magic number of case laws that is enough for Judiciary Mains. The quality of an answer does not depend on how many judgments have been mentioned, but on whether the student has identified and used the relevant judgment at the relevant place. A case law should support the answer, not become the answer itself.