From tackling politically delicate matters to establishing new fundamental rights, the Supreme Court of India made news in 2024 with some exceptionally groundbreaking rulings.
Here is our ranking of the top 10 rulings of 2024 as the year draws to a close. These choices are notable for having profound effects on politics, the economy, and society.
1. Bail for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal | Arvind Kejriwal v Directorate of Enforcement
The strict interpretation of the bail requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, was loosened by the Arvind Kejriwal bail case.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) detained Kejriwal on suspicion of involvement in the Delhi Liquor Policy fraud. In relation to the same scheme, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) also arrested him on corruption allegations.
The Supreme Court pointed out that Kejriwal had been imprisoned for extended periods of time and that it was unlikely that his case would go to trial anytime soon.
2. Possessing child pornography punishable under POCSO Act | Just Rights for Children Alliance vs S Harish
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Just Rights for Children Alliance vs S Harish on September 24, 2024, India has joined a select group of countries that have made it illegal to watch, store, or possess “child pornography”.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala emphasised in his ruling that the term should be referred to as “child sexual abuse and exploitative material,” or “CSEAM,” and objected to its use in formal settings.
High Courts have been unable to come to a logical conclusion for years on whether “mere possession” of obscene movies featuring children was covered by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
3. State’s power to regulate industrial alcohol | State of UP vs M/S. Lalta Prasad Vaish and Sons
This lawsuit concerns whether the State Legislature has the right to control ‘industrial alcohol’ under the words “intoxicating liquors” in Entry 8 of List II of the Constitution’s 7th Schedule.
When the Uttar Pradesh government imposed a license fee on the sale of denatured spirits (industrial alcohol rendered undrinkable), it was challenged, and the Allahabad High Court overturned it, prompting this appeal.
The Synthetics case was overturned by the Supreme Court, which ruled 8 to 1 in favour of the State’s authority to control industrial alcohol.
The Synthetics & Chemicals vs State of UP ruling from 1989 limited state authority over industrial alcohol by ruling that “intoxicating liquor” only covered drinkable alcohol.
Since alcohol may be abused to cause drunkenness, the court ruled that all types of alcohol, including industrial alcohol, are considered “intoxicating liquors” under Entry 8. Dissenting Justice Nagarathna argued that industrial alcohol is not consumable by nature, hence, it does not fit within the category of “intoxicating liquors” and is therefore still under Union supervision.
4. Withdrawal of remission granted to Bilkis Bano convicts | Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs Union of India
The Supreme Court’s first major ruling in 2024, which overturned the Gujarat government’s order to free 11 prisoners in the Bilkis Bano case, received widespread attention.
The defendants were sentenced to life in prison for the gang rape and murder of Bano’s family during the Gujarat riots of 2002. It was a crime that outraged the conscience of a big portion of the country.
Notably, the offenders were convicted in Mumbai, hence the Maharashtra government is the right authority to consider remission.
The verdict implies that the Gujarat government was aware of the prisoners’ malice in appealing to the incorrect government but nonetheless evaluated their application.
The decision said that the Gujarat government, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, worked “in tandem” with the prisoners.
Justice BV Nagarathna’s decision emphasised that remission petitions may only be considered if offenders follow the rule of law. Furthermore, the verdicts held that, while the decision to release convicts is in the administrative domain, courts have the right to overturn remission orders.
5. Validity of the Electoral Bonds Scheme | Association of Democratic Reforms vs Union of India
A five-judge court overturned the 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The EB Scheme enabled businesses, individuals, and organisations to make anonymous donations to political parties.
On February 15, 2024, the court unanimously ruled that voters had the right to be informed about the sources of party funding. The court determined that the 2018 scheme was not flawless and did not meet the Union’s purpose for wishing to safeguard funders from negative activities by competing political parties.
In an effort to promote free and fair elections, the Court put an immediate halt to bond sales and directed the Election Commission and the State Bank of India to publicly release the data they had previously gathered on EB transactions.
Researchers, journalists, and citizens combed through the data, making links between donations and, on the one hand, lucrative government contracts and the sudden termination of criminal investigations.
In August, however, the Court rejected to form a Special Investigation Team to investigate charges of quid pro quo, claiming that the allegations were only “assumptions.”
6. Validity of sub-classification within reserved categories | State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh
In a landmark decision on affirmative action law in the country, a seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court recognised states’ authority to create sub-categories inside the reserved Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories (SC/ST). The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, overruled E.V. Chinnaiah v Union of India (2004) by a 6:1 majority.
The majority argued that sub-classification was acceptable to provide “substantive equality” since different communities on the SC/ST list experienced differing levels of discrimination and inequality. However, the bench ruled that any statute establishing sub-classifications must be supported by empirical data and would be open to judicial scrutiny.
Following the decision, some state governments indicated that they were eager to push sub-classification.
7. Constitutional validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act, 1955
Assam had an influx of immigrants following the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War.
Responding to local demonstrations, the Union Government signed the Assam Accord on August 15, 1985, which granted immigrants particular citizenship provisions under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.
This clause granted citizenship to Indian immigrants arriving before January 1, 1966, while those entering between January 1, 1966 and March 24, 1971, were eligible for citizenship under specific conditions.
This lawsuit called into doubt the constitutionality of Section 6A under Articles 11, 14, 29, 326, and 355, particularly in light of its impact on Assam’s demography and indigenous identity.
The case was referred to a Constitution Bench in 2014 because of its complicated constitutional consequences.
The Supreme Court confirmed the legality of Section 6A by a 4:1 majority. Justice Surya Kant wrote the majority opinion (for himself, Justices Sundresh, and Mishra), which was endorsed by the CJI’s concurring opinion. Justice Pardiwala dissented, calling Section 6A unconstitutional.
8. Challenge to caste-based discrimination in prisons | Sukanya Shantha vs Union of India
Sukanya Shantha, a journalist, wrote an article about caste-based discrimination in Indian jails, which prompted her to file a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution challenging several clauses in state prison manuals that encouraged caste-based segregation and discrimination.
Some restrictions included laws such as allocating specified chores (e.g., sweeping) to convicts of specific castes and designating “suitable” castes for cooking or security responsibilities. Shantha contended that these clauses discriminated against people on the basis of caste, in violation of their fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court deemed the challenged elements in prison manuals illegal, citing infringement of multiple constitutional articles, including Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23.
The Court ordered all states to revise their prison manuals to eradicate caste-based discrimination and to remove caste references from prisoner registries.
Furthermore, the Union Government was directed to update the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, within three months to reflect these amendments.
9. Institutional safety measures for medical professionals | Kolkata murder & rape case
A postgraduate trainee doctor working a 36-hour shift at RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata was discovered dead and reportedly raped in a hospital lecture room on August 9, 2024. The event sparked widespread indignation, with photographs of the deceased spreading on social media.
Initially, medical officials informed the family that the death was a suicide; nevertheless, further inquiry resulted in a FIR for murder.
Concerns about the investigation’s integrity led the Calcutta High Court to refer the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Following this, a crowd vandalised the hospital’s emergency department, prompting the Indian Medical Association to launch a statewide strike to demand improved safety for healthcare personnel.
The event sparked serious concerns about the safety and working environment of medical personnel, particularly those working late hours.
Recognising the gravity of the situation, SC formed a 9-person nationwide Task Force to develop a nationwide protocol for the protection of physicians and medical personnel. This Task Force was tasked with focussing on two areas:
In addition, the Court directed the CBI and the State of West Bengal to provide status updates on the murder and vandalism investigations by August 22, 2024, respectively.
10. Is Delhi LG bound by aid & advice of NCT’s elected govt when nominating MCD members?
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has 260 members, of whom 250 are elected and 10 are nominated by the LG under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
Article 239AA(4) of the Constitution requires the LG to act with the help and advice of the Delhi Government’s Council of Ministers on subjects within the Delhi Assembly’s legislative jurisdiction. However, there is an exemption if the LG is required to act in discretion “by or under any law.”
Following the Aam Aadmi Party’s victory in the MCD election in December 2022, the LG appointed 10 members without consulting the Delhi government. The Delhi government contested this appointment in the Supreme Court, claiming that the LG should have followed its advice.
The Supreme Court declared that the LG is not bound by the Delhi Government’s help and advice while nominating members to the MCD under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the DMC Act. Justice Narasimha wrote the decision, saying that the DMC Act, passed by Parliament, expressly enables the LG to act independently in this case.
Link to article –
Supreme Court’s Top 10 Rulings of 2024: A Year of Groundbreaking Decisions
