1. Constitutional validity of a statute Cannot Be Challenged on Grounds of Basic Structure Violation: Supreme Court
The Court reaffirmed that the constitutional validity of a statute cannot be questioned on the basis of a violation of the basic structure doctrine. It held that a statute may only be invalidated for contravening Part III or other provisions of the Constitution or for lacking legislative competence.
Case Title: Anjum Kadari & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 831
Date of Judgment: November 5, 2024
Coram: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
2. Exemption under the Customs Act Requires Notification duly published in Official Gazette: Supreme Court
The Court stressed that an exemption under the Customs Act, 1962 must be supported by a notification issued in accordance with the Act and duly published in the Official Gazette. The observation was made while hearing a civil appeal filed by Nabha Power Limited challenging the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) in a dispute with Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL).
Case Title: Nabha Power Limited & Anr. v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 833
Date of Judgment: November 5, 2024
Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
3. “Material Resources of the Community” Does Not Include All Privately Owned Property: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that the phrase “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution does not encompass all privately held property, even if such property has the potential to be acquired by the State for serving the “common good.”
A nine-judge Constitution Bench delivered three judgments in this case, addressing key constitutional questions:
- Whether Article 31C, as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), continues to hold validity after the amended provision was struck down in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980).
- Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) in State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1977) and Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing v. Bharat Coking Coal (1982) requires reconsideration.
- Whether the term “material resources of the community” can include privately owned resources.
Case Title: Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 835
Date of Judgment: November 5, 2024
Coram: CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Satish Sharma, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
4. Second Complaint on Identical Facts is not Maintainable: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a second complaint based on “almost identical facts” as the first is not maintainable, underscoring that “if the essence of both complaints is the same,” the second should not be entertained.
The Court overturned the Gauhati High Court’s judgment, which had allowed the second complaint, and reinstated the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s dismissal of the second complaint. The Bench emphasized that permitting a second complaint on identical grounds undermines legal principles and judicial consistency.
Case Title: Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 834
Date of Judgment: November 5, 2024
Coram: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
5. Decision Per Incuriam Only When Central Statutory Provision or Precedent Overlooked: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that a decision is deemed per incuriam only when a statutory provision or legal precedent, pivotal to the legal issue at hand, is overlooked. The Court emphasized that such oversight must be significant enough to potentially alter the outcome of the case if those provisions had been considered.
The observations were made in a civil appeal filed by M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., where a Constitution Bench clarified that a license to drive a ‘light motor vehicle’ (LMV) automatically permits the holder to drive a light transport vehicle with an unladen weight of up to 7,500 kilograms.
Case Title: M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 840
Date of Judgment: November 6, 2024
Coram: CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra
6. Placement in Selection List Does Not Confer Indefeasible Right to Appointment Even if Vacancies Exist: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that inclusion in a selection list does not grant a candidate an indefeasible right to appointment, even if vacancies are available. A Constitution Bench addressed whether recruitment rules could be modified after the commencement of the recruitment process.
The matter arose from the Rajasthan High Court’s recruitment for translator posts, where a post-examination introduction of a 75% cut-off mark sparked contention. Candidates challenged this change, asserting it violated the principle that the “rules of the game” should not be altered once the recruitment process has begun.
Case Title: Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 847
Date of Judgment: November 7, 2024
Coram: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra
7. Supreme Court Highlights Need for Appointing Individuals with High Ideals and Integrity in NCLT and NCLAT; Opposes Political Appointments
The Supreme Court addressed deficiencies in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), offering suggestions for improving the functioning of the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLTs) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunals (NCLATs).
The Court emphasized that individuals with high ideals and impeccable integrity should be appointed as members of NCLTs and NCLATs, stressing that political considerations must not influence such appointments.
This observation was made while deciding civil appeals challenging the NCLAT’s decision to dismiss an appeal and uphold an NCLT order.
Case Title: State Bank of India & Ors. v. The Consortium of Mr. Murari Lal Jalan and Mr. Florian Fritsch & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 852
Date of Judgment: November 7, 2024
Coram: Former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
8. Supreme Court Overrules ‘Azeez Pasha’ Judgment; Declares AMU Can Claim Minority Status
A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered its verdict on petitions concerning the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). In a landmark 4:3 majority decision, the Court overruled its 1967 judgment in Azeez Basha v. Union of India, which had held that AMU could not claim minority status as it was established by a statute.
The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and supported by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, upheld AMU’s right to minority status. However, the dissenting opinion by Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Satish Chandra Sharma opposed this view.
Case Title: Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 856
Date of Judgment: November 8, 2024
Coram: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Surya Kant, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
9. Unilateral Arbitrator Appointment Clauses in Public-Private Contracts Violate Article 14: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that unilateral arbitrator appointment clauses in public-private contracts are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for fairness and impartiality in arbitration processes. The Constitution Bench issued this ruling while deciding civil appeals concerning the independence and impartiality of Arbitral Tribunals under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Case Title: Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 857
Date of Judgment: November 8, 2024
Coram: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
10. Supreme Court directs Government to Prescribe Mandatory Accessibility Standards Under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act)
The Supreme Court declared a rule in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 prescribing accessibility standards as ultra vires to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), finding several provisions to be mere “recommendatory guidelines” presented as mandatory rules. The Court emphasized that this contradicts the legislative intent of the Act, which mandates compliance to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities.
The judgment originated from a writ petition filed in 2005 by Rajive Raturi, a visually impaired human rights advocate, seeking directions to improve safety and accessibility in public spaces, including roads, public transport, and other facilities for the visually challenged.
Case Title: Rajive Raturi v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 858
Date of Judgment: November 8, 2024
Coram: Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
11. Doctrine of Lis Pendens Applies to Review Petitions which are pending in a defective State in registry
The Court affirmed that the Doctrine of Lis Pendens applies when a petition for review is lying in a defective state in the registry. This ruling came in response to review petitions filed against a judgment of the three-Judge Bench passed in August 2022, which had allowed an appeal against the Telangana High Court’s decision.
Case Title: M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 861
Date of Judgment: November 8, 2024
Coram: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
12. “Bulldozer Justice” Unacceptable under Rule of Law: SC Directs Compensation for Illegal Demolition
The Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to pay ₹25 lakhs in compensation to senior journalist Manoj Tibrewal for the illegal demolition of his ancestral residential house and shop in Maharajganj District. The Court strongly criticized the practice of “bulldozer justice,” deeming it wholly unacceptable under the rule of law. The journalist had approached the Court, challenging the unlawful actions against his property.
Case Title: In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 863
Date of Judgment: November 6, 2024
Coram: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
13. “Executive Cannot Become a Judge”: Supreme Court Issues Guidelines on Property Demolition
The Supreme Court laid down nationwide guidelines on property demolitions while ruling on petitions challenging the use of “bulldozer actions” by authorities as punitive measures against accused persons. The Bench emphasized that the executive cannot assume the role of a judge. Justice Gavai remarked, “It is the dream of every family to have a home or shelter. The critical question before us is whether the executive can strip a person accused of a crime of their shelter.”
Case Title: In Re: Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 866
Date of Judgment: November 13, 2024
Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
14. Compassionate Appointment Not a Service Condition; Requires Strict Scrutiny
The Supreme Court observed that the right to compassionate appointment is not a condition of service for employees who die in harness. Such appointments must undergo strict scrutiny and cannot be granted to dependents without a thorough evaluation or selection process. The judgment arose from a civil appeal filed by the son of a deceased Haryana Police constable who had died on duty in 1997, seeking compassionate employment.
Case Title: Tinku v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 867
Date of Judgment: November 13, 2024
Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih
15.Mere Breakup of Consensual Relationship Cannot Lead to Criminal Proceedings: SC Quashes Rape Case:
The Supreme Court ruled that the mere breakup of a consensual relationship between adults cannot be treated as grounds for initiating criminal proceedings. It held that a consensual relationship that does not culminate in marriage cannot be criminalized. The Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC and overturned the Delhi High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR. The Bench observed that both the appellant and the complainant were educated adults, and continuing criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
Case Title: Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 879
Date of Judgment: November 20, 2024
Coram: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Read Here:‘Mere Breakup Between Couples Can’t Result In Rape Proceedings Against Man’: Supreme Court
16. No Bar for Taking Cognizance When High Court Directs Filing of Complaint: SC Clarifies Prosecution Principles Under Section 195 CrPC
The Supreme Court outlined the principles concerning prosecutions under Section 195 of the CrPC, emphasizing that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) does not apply when the forgery of a document occurs before its presentation in court or when a judicial order is involved in the proceedings. The Court made these observations while reinstating a two-decade-old case of evidence tampering against former Kerala Minister Antony Raju. It noted that the High Court had incorrectly concluded that the proceedings were barred under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC.
Case Title: M.R. Ajayan v. State Of Kerala & Ors
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 881
Date of Judgment: November 20, 2024
Coram: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol
17. Property Given for Maintenance to Hindu Woman Becomes Absolute Ownership Under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act
The Court ruled that property granted to a Hindu woman in lieu of maintenance transforms into her absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. The Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment, which held that if property is given to a widow in recognition of her Sastric right to maintenance or arrears of maintenance, it would become her absolute property once the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into effect.
Case Title: Kallakuri Pattabhiramaswamy (Dead) Through LRs. v. Kallakuri Kamaraju & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 883
Date of Judgment: November 21, 2024
Coram: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol
18. Sale Certificate Issued After Confirmation of Auction Sale Not Compulsorily Registrable
The Court clarified that a sale certificate issued to a purchaser following the confirmation of an auction sale is simply evidence of the purchaser’s title and is not required to be registered under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. The certificate will only attract stamp duty if the auction purchaser presents it for registration. The appeal before the Court stemmed from the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment, which allowed the Respondent Company’s writ petition and directed the Registrar to hand over the original sale certificate to the Respondent, while also sending a copy to the Sub-Registrar as per Section 89(4) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
Case Title: The State of Punjab & Anr. v. M/s Ferrous Alloy Forgings P Ltd.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 890
Date of Judgment: November 19, 2024
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
19.’Socialism’ Represents Goal of Economic and Social Upliftment, Does Not Limit Fundamental Right to Business Under Article 19(1)(g)
The Court emphasized that the term ‘socialism’ in the Constitution reflects the goal of economic and social upliftment and does not restrict the fundamental right to engage in business and trade under Article 19(1)(g). The Court further noted that the Constitution is a living document, with Parliament having the power to amend it in accordance with Article 368. These observations were made while dismissing a petition that challenged the inclusion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble to the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act of 1976.
Case Title: Balram Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 893
Date of Judgment: November 25, 2024
Coram: Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
20. Conferment of Scheduled Caste Status to Christian Candidate Claiming Hinduism for Reservation Is Fraud on Constitution
The Court ruled that granting Scheduled Caste status to a person who is a Christian by religion but claims to embrace Hinduism solely for the purpose of availing reservation in employment constitutes a fraud on the Constitution. The Court emphasized that such a claim undermines the very objective of reservation. The Appeal was filed against the Madras High Court’s decision, which had dismissed the appellant’s Writ Petition seeking the quashing of proceedings against her and the issuance of a Scheduled Caste community certificate under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964.
Case Title: C. Selvarani v. The Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Others
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 900
Date of Judgment: November 26, 2024
Coram: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan
21. Section 164 CrPC Statement Cannot Be Discarded Solely Based on Witness’s Claim of Incorrect Recording
The Court ruled that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC cannot be dismissed merely based on the witness’s claim that it was not recorded correctly. The Court upheld the life sentence of the husband and mother-in-law (Appellants) for the murder of the wife, dismissing their appeals against conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The Bench affirmed the decisions of both the Trial Court and the Uttarakhand High Court, which had convicted the Appellants based on circumstantial evidence.
Case Title: Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State Of Uttarakhand
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 905
Date of Judgment: November 25, 2024
Coram: Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
22. Section 27 Evidence Act: Disclosure Statement Not Admissible if Discovery Not Made Based on Statement
The Court held that a disclosure statement is not admissible in evidence if the alleged discovery was not made as a result of that statement. The Court acquitted two individuals convicted under Section 304 Part I of the IPC in 1997, reiterating that courts must ensure that the prosecution does not misinterpret a simple recovery as a discovery of fact under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Bench observed that the disclosure statement in this case was recorded at the police station, while the recovery was made from the location pointed out by the appellants while en route to the police station.
Case Title: Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr. v. State Of Uttarakhand
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 907
Date of Judgment: November 28, 2024
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
23. Broken Relationship Alone Does Not Constitute Abetment to Suicide
The Court acquitted a man who had been convicted for abetment of suicide, ruling that a broken relationship, by itself, does not amount to abetment to suicide. The Court overturned the conviction imposed by the Karnataka High Court under Sections 417 and 306 of the IPC. It clarified that merely refusing to marry the deceased does not amount to instigating, inciting, or provoking the deceased to take their own life.
Case Title: Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State Of Maharashtra
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 908
Date of Judgment: November 29, 2024
Coram: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
24. Courts Must Favor Weaker and Poorer Sections in Conflicts Between the Powerful and Powerless
The Court emphasized that state authorities have an obligation to foster a social order that ensures justice—social, economic, and political—permeates all national institutions, aiming to reduce inequalities in status, facilities, and opportunities. The Court made these observations in a Civil Appeal filed by Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment. The Bench stated, “Whenever a conflict arises between the powerful and the powerless, social justice compels the Courts to favor the weaker and poorer sections when the scales are evenly balanced.”
Case Title: Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar v. Monika & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 911
Date of Judgment: November 29, 2024
Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice R. Mahadevan
25. Supreme Court Criticizes High Court’s Practice of Deciding Second Appeal Without Hearing the Parties
The Court criticized the practice of the High Court deciding an appeal without providing the concerned party an opportunity to be heard. The Court allowed an appeal against the Bombay High Court’s decision, where the appeal had been decided without notice to the appellant. In 2022, the High Court’s Division Bench had declared the sale deeds executed by the appellant in relation to the suit property as null and void, specifically regarding the 3/4th share of the respondent.
Case Title: Shivaji v. Parwatibai & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 917
Date of Judgment: November 26, 2024
Coram: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOR YOUTUBE
