Every judiciary aspirant has one common fear while preparing for the judiciary examination: How am I supposed to remember so many judgments?
Of course, the fear is not simply about studying so much. The real fear is about reproducing those judgments in the answer sheet when the examination actually takes place.
Every student who sits down to write an answer often thinks, “I understand the law. My concepts are clear. I know how to frame a good answer.” But the moment it comes to remembering the names of judgments, the confidence starts fading. The student begins to wonder, “What should I do now? What if I know the law but cannot remember the name of the judgment?”
This is a genuine concern, and we have discussed it with our students ample times. Yes, writing the names of judgments in a judiciary answer is important. However, the name of a judgment is not the only thing that determines the quality of your answer.
You need to understand which judgments deserve to be remembered by name, which can be referred to briefly, and which do not require you to spend hours memorising their names and citations.
Here are five ways to understand how to use case law effectively in your judiciary mains examination.
1. Try to Remember the Names of Landmark Judgments
The first thing that every judicial aspirant must understand is that the names of only certain and relevant judgments are important. These are certain landmark judgments that have remarkably changed the interpretation of the law or a astute or established an important new legal principle.
For example, consider Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). This is a landmark judgment that established the Basic Structure Doctrine in India. A student preparing for the judiciary examination cannot afford to discuss the Basic Structure Doctrine without knowing this judgment.
Similarly, when discussing the expansion of Article 21 and the relationship between various Articles like 14, 19 and 21, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is a judgment whose name every serious judiciary aspirant should know.
The point is if a judgment has changed the legal position or statute or established a landmark principle, a student can make an effort to remember the judgement’s name. These are the judgments that deserve to be remembered.
2. You Do Not Always Need to Remember the Full Name of Every Judgment
Now comes the second and equally important point. Not every judgment needs to be remembered with its complete case title.
Suppose you are writing an answer on the Basic Structure Doctrine. Apart from Kesavananda Bharati, there are some other judgments that may be relevant to the answer, such as Minerva Mills and Golaknath.
It is very difficult for the student to remember every judgment’s full name. However, if they remember the name slightly and know the legal principle associated with it, they can still use it in their answer.
For example, a student can refer to the judgement’s name as Minerva Mills or Golaknath without necessarily reproducing the full case title.
The examiner wants to know that if the student knows the law and is aware of the judicial decisions relevant to the question. A complete case title is not always necessary to establish that understanding.
Therefore, do not allow the inability to remember the full name of a judgment to prevent you from writing a relevant legal point. Remember the commonly used name, understand what the court held, and use the judgment wherever it adds value to your answer.
3. Focus should be on Current Legal Position, Not Just the Number of Judgments in an answer
Suppose a particular judgment laid down a legal principle, but a later judgment overruled that decision. In such a situation, the student must understand the development of the law and give appropriate importance to the current legal position.
A student can write that “The Supreme Court held in case of Golaknath that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights. However, this overruled in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where Court held that Parliament could amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but could not change its basic structure.”
Therefore, while preparing the case law, focus should be on understanding which judgment which established the earlier position and whether a later decision overruled or modified it,.
This does not mean that earlier judgments are not important. Sometimes, an earlier judgment is very important to understand the evolution of a legal principle. However, it is also important to distinguish between a judgment that is historically significant and a judgment that states the current law.
One relevant judgment that correctly establishes the present legal position is more useful than a long list of judgments that do not add anything meaningful to your answer.
4. Do Not Waste Time Memorising the Citations and Years of Every Judgment
The fourth point concerns the citations and years of judgments.
Many judiciary aspirants spend a considerable amount of time trying to memorise the exact year and citation of every judgment. They prepare long lists, revise them repeatedly, and become anxious when they cannot recall these details during answer writing.
But ask yourself this: is remembering the exact year of every judgment more important than understanding the legal principle laid down by the court?
For mains answer writing, your priority should be understanding the law, remembering the names of the most important judgments, and knowing how those judgments are relevant to the question. You generally do not need to reproduce the year or full citation of every judgment unless the question or examination instructions require it.
You can certainly prepare a flowchart showing the sequence in which important judgments were delivered. For example, you can note which judgment came first, which judgment subsequently changed the legal position, and which judgment finally clarified the law. This is particularly useful for understanding the development of a doctrine and for preparing for MCQs, where dates and chronology may be tested.
However, you do not need to burden yourself by trying to reproduce every year in your mains answers.
Imagine that you are writing an answer and suddenly cannot remember whether a judgment was delivered in one year or another. You may become so anxious about this missing detail that you lose your flow and confidence. Do not let that happen.
An accurate explanation of the legal principle is generally more valuable than an unnecessary date or citation that you cannot confidently recall.
5. Answer Writing Is Not About the Number of Judgments You Mention
Always remember that answer writing is not about who can mention the highest number of judgments. It is about the quality of an answer, on how well you understand, explain, and apply the law to the question asked. Simply mentioning n number of judgments will not guarantee good marks if the legal reasoning is not to the point.
Similarly, even a few judgments can make your answer strong if they directly support the legal principle. For example, if a question is about the Basic Structure Doctrine, you may explain the doctrine, by citing the judgment of Kesavananda Bharati, and use Minerva Mills too but it is not necessary to remember the date or full name of the judgement.
You do not need to list every judgment ever delivered on the subject merely to make your answer appear comprehensive.
The real question is not how many judgments you have mentioned, but whether the judgments you have mentioned actually strengthen your answer.
Therefore, a judiciary aspirant should always focus on the quality of your legal reasoning rather than the quantity of case names.
Conclusion: Learn the Law, Not Just the Names
The objective of preparing for the judiciary examination is not to memorise 500 judgments and reproduce as many of them as possible in the examination hall. The objective is to develop a clear understanding of the law and learn how to use judicial decisions to support your answers.
Remember the names of landmark judgments that have significantly changed the legal position. Learn the commonly used names of other relevant cases. Understand how the law has developed, focus on the current legal position, and avoid spending excessive time memorising every citation and year. Most importantly, learn how to use a judgment to strengthen your legal reasoning.
If a judgment has fundamentally changed the interpretation of the law, it deserves your attention and should be part of your must-remember list. But if a judgment is relatively less significant, or its legal position has subsequently changed, do not spend disproportionate time memorising its name at the cost of understanding the law.
You do not need to remember every judgment. You need to know which judgments matter, what they held, and how to use them in your answer.
That is the difference between merely memorising case law and actually learning how to write a good judiciary mains answer.