How to Write a Case Comment: Format and Worked Example

A case comment is a short, critical analysis of one judgment: it sets out the facts and issues briefly, explains the court’s reasoning, and then evaluates whether the decision is right, what it changes, and what problems it leaves open. The analysis, not the summary, is what makes it publishable. This guide gives you the standard format, a checklist of what to include, and a worked example based on the nine-judge bench decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) on the right to privacy.

Case note, case summary and case comment: the difference

For how case comments compare with other formats, see research paper vs article vs blog in law.

Choosing the right judgment

• Recent and significant: a fresh Supreme Court or High Court ruling that changes or clarifies the law.
• Debatable: split benches, dissents, or reasoning that sits uneasily with earlier precedent give you material to analyse.
• Manageable: very long judgments with many opinions are rich but need discipline; focus on one or two questions.
• Not already over-commented: if dozens of comments exist, choose a narrower angle, such as how later courts have applied it.

Standard format of a case comment

1. Title: an angle, not just the case name. Example: “Privacy After Puttaswamy: The Unfinished Business of Proportionality”.
2. Citation and bench: full case name, citation, date of decision, bench strength, and authors of opinions.
3. Introduction: why the case matters and your thesis in two to three sentences.
4. Background and facts: only the facts the reasoning depends on.
5. Issues: the precise legal questions the court decided.
6. Arguments of the parties: brief, focused on the main lines.
7. Decision and reasoning: the holding, the ratio, and key steps in reasoning; note concurrences and dissents.
8. Critical analysis: the heart of the comment (usually half the word count).
9. Impact and subsequent developments: later cases, legislation, or practice influenced by the judgment.
10. Conclusion: your overall assessment.

Typical length is about 2,000 to 4,000 words, depending on the journal.

What good critical analysis looks like

Ask these questions of the judgment and answer the two or three most important ones in depth:

• Is the reasoning consistent with binding precedent and the constitutional or statutory text?
• Did the court answer the question referred, or go wider or narrower?
• Is the test laid down clear enough for lower courts to apply?
• What did the concurring or dissenting opinions add, and does the difference matter?
• How does the judgment compare with leading decisions in other jurisdictions?
• What practical consequences followed for litigants, the state, or legislation?

Worked example: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

The following outline shows how the format applies to a real judgment. It is a condensed model you can use to structure your own comment; read the full judgment before writing.

1. Citation and bench

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, decided on 24 August 2017 by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The decision was unanimous. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud wrote the lead opinion for himself, Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer. Justices J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre and S.K. Kaul wrote separate concurring opinions.

2. Background

The question arose during the challenge to the Aadhaar scheme. The Union argued that the Constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to privacy, relying on two earlier decisions: M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954, eight judges) and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962, six judges). Because those benches were larger than the benches in later cases that had recognised privacy, the matter was referred to a bench of nine judges to settle the constitutional status of privacy. The validity of Aadhaar itself was left to be decided separately.

3. Issue

Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution, and whether M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh correctly held otherwise.

4. Decision and reasoning

• The Court held that privacy is a constitutionally protected right, arising primarily from the guarantee of life and personal liberty in Article 21 and also from the freedoms in Part III.
• M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were overruled to the extent they held that privacy is not protected by the Constitution.
• Privacy was described as having several dimensions, including bodily integrity, informational privacy and the privacy of choice.
• Like other fundamental rights, privacy is not absolute. The lead opinion indicated that a restriction must satisfy legality (a law), a legitimate state aim, and proportionality. Justice Kaul’s concurrence also discussed proportionality and procedural safeguards.
• The lead opinion also criticised the majority view in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) as seriously flawed, and expressed doubts about the reasoning in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013) on sexual orientation, while leaving that challenge to be decided in the pending matter.

5. Critical analysis: angles you could develop

• Multiple opinions, one ratio? Six opinions agree on the result but differ on the source and limits of privacy. A comment can examine which propositions command a majority and therefore bind lower courts.
• The proportionality test: the judgment set out a structure but left its detailed application to later cases. How rigorously was it applied in the later Aadhaar judgment (2018) and in subsequent surveillance or data cases?
• Horizontal application: the judgment speaks mainly of the state. How far does it support claims against private actors, such as technology companies?
• Legislative response: the judgment urged a data protection regime. You could assess whether the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, including its exemptions for the state, matches the standards the Court described.

6. Impact

The judgment became the foundation for later rights decisions. A five-judge bench relied on it in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to decriminalise consensual same-sex relations between adults. The validity of Aadhaar was then decided by a five-judge bench in September 2018, which largely upheld the scheme while striking down certain provisions. A comment written today would trace this line and ask whether the promise of 2017 has been kept.

7. Sample thesis statement

“Puttaswamy settled that privacy is a fundamental right, but by leaving the proportionality test loosely defined across six opinions, it shifted the real contest to later benches, where the right has been applied with uneven rigour.”

Common mistakes in case comments

• Spending 80% of the word count on facts and holding.
• Quoting long passages instead of explaining the reasoning.
• Ignoring concurring and dissenting opinions.
• Citing the wrong report or paragraph. Always use pinpoint paragraph numbers from the official or reported text.
• Writing about a case where the judgment you are commenting on has since been overruled, without saying so.

For citation of judgments, see how to cite Indian cases and our OSCOLA guide. Once your comment is ready, our guide on publishing in a law journal in India explains the next steps. The Lexfolio Journal of Law, Policy and Social Sciences (LJLPS) accepts case comments alongside full papers; see the call for papers.

Frequently asked questions

How long is a case comment?

Usually about 2,000 to 4,000 words, but limits vary by journal. Check the author guidelines before you start.

Can I write a case comment on an old judgment?

Yes, if you bring a new angle, such as how later courts have applied it or how a new statute affects it. A plain summary of an old case is unlikely to be accepted.

Should a case comment include my own opinion?

Yes. Your reasoned evaluation is the point of a case comment. Support every view with authority, text or logic, and engage with the opposite view.

Do I need to read the full judgment?

Always. Headnotes and news reports can miss nuances, especially where there are several opinions. Cite paragraph numbers from the judgment itself.