The year saw an increase in legal disputes related to places of worship, including high-profile cases such as Gyanvapi, Mathura, Bhojshala, and Sambhal. On December 12, the Supreme Court ruled to prevent any court from issuing interim or final orders on these matters.
NEW DELHI: In 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered several landmark rulings, including the abolition of the electoral bonds scheme for political funding, the establishment of guidelines for “bulldozer” justice, and the prohibition of all courts from hearing disputes related to religious sites.
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna succeeded Justice D Y Chandrachud
On November 11, Justice Sanjiv Khanna succeeded Justice D Y Chandrachud as the Chief Justice of India. Known for his focus on efficiency, Justice Khanna introduced reforms to reduce the backlog of cases, including the end of the oral mentioning practice for urgent listings.
Religious Site Disputes
The year saw an increase in legal disputes related to places of worship, including high-profile cases such as Gyanvapi, Mathura, Bhojshala, and Sambhal. On December 12, the Supreme Court ruled to prevent any court from issuing interim or final orders on these matters.
A special three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna issued an interim order stating that courts should not pass any effective interim or final orders, including those for surveys, in pending suits until the next hearing. The bench further clarified that “effective interim” would mean no survey orders.
This Supreme Court order is significant as it follows multiple civil suits related to mosque-temple disputes pending in trial courts. The ruling impacts several ongoing cases, including:
Sambhal’s Shahi Jama Masjid: Sambhal witnessed violent clashes following a court-ordered survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, with locals protesting the order. The petitioners claimed that the mosque was constructed over the remnants of a Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Kalki. The violence, which resulted in fatalities, led the Supreme Court to halt further legal proceedings until a case challenging the survey order could be heard by the Allahabad High Court.
Ajmer Sharif Dargah: In September 2024, Hindu Sena chief Vishnu Gupta filed a civil suit claiming historical evidence of a Shiva temple at the Ajmer Sharif Dargah site. The West Civil Court in Ajmer admitted the petition in November, issuing notices to several authorities. The plaintiff is requesting a survey by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and permission for Hindus to worship at the site, a demand that has caused widespread controversy.
Shahi Idgah Mosque in Mathura: Multiple suits have been filed since 2020 seeking the removal of the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura, alleging it was built on the birthplace of Lord Krishna. The Allahabad High Court has now taken up these suits, with the mosque committee challenging the maintainability of the case in the Supreme Court.
Lucknow’s Teele Wali Masjid: A petition was filed in 2013 seeking a survey of the Teele Wali Masjid, claiming it replaced a Hindu religious structure. The case is still pending before the Allahabad High Court, with another suit seeking to allow prayers inside the mosque.
Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi: The Gyanvapi Mosque is involved in a long-standing dispute, with petitioners claiming it was built over a temple. In 2021, Hindu women petitioned to offer prayers at the site, and the Varanasi court ordered a survey. The case has attracted significant attention, with the Supreme Court hearing appeals regarding the survey and the Places of Worship Act.
Shamsi Jama Masjid in Budaun: The Shamsi Jama Masjid is another mosque facing dispute, with the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha filing a suit in 2022 claiming it was built on the site of the Neelkanth Mahadev temple. A fast-track court is currently hearing the case.
Quwwat-ul-Islam Masjid in Delhi: A civil judge in Delhi dismissed a suit seeking the restoration of Hindu temples within the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque. The suit was rejected based on the Places of Worship Act, but the decision has been challenged in a higher court.
Kamal Maula Masjid in Madhya Pradesh: The Kamal Maula Masjid in Dhar is claimed by both Hindus and Muslims. Hindus argue that it was originally a temple dedicated to Saraswati. The Madhya Pradesh High Court is overseeing a survey of the site, with the Supreme Court intervening to bar excavations that would alter its character.
Other Cases: Several other mosques, including the Malali Juma Masjid in Mangalore and the Atala Mosque in Jaunpur, are also the subject of ongoing disputes with petitions seeking surveys based on claims of religious structures being repurposed for mosques. Courts are examining the maintainability of these cases, with some seeking police security for survey proceedings.
The Supreme Court’s interim order will impact these cases, as it prohibits further actions such as surveys until the matters are fully reviewed.
Mumbai College Hijab Ban: Supreme Court’s Stay
In August 2024, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar intervened by staying a circular issued by Mumbai’s NG Acharya and DK Marathe College that prohibited the wearing of hijabs, caps, and badges on campus.
While granting the stay, the judges remarked that if the intention behind the ban was to curb religious expressions, symbols like ‘tilak’ or ‘bindi’ should also be banned. The bench acknowledged that face-covering veils like the ‘niqab’ might hinder classroom interaction but found that the ban on headgear violated students’ freedom to choose their attire.
Electoral Bonds Case
On February 15, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously strucked down the Union’s 2018 Electoral Bonds (EB) Scheme, ruling that it infringed upon voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court also ordered an immediate cessation of the sale of electoral bonds.
The State Bank of India (SBI) was instructed to provide details of the Electoral Bonds purchased from April 12, 2019, to the Election Commission of India (ECI), including information on the purchasers and the political parties that received the bonds. Additionally, the Court directed the ECI to publish this information on its official website by March 13, 2024, one week after receiving the details from SBI.
Voting System: EVMs and Paper Ballots
The Supreme Court dismissed the proposal to revert to paper ballots, affirming that Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) are “simple, secure, and user-friendly.” The case, filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India, was heard by Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta.
The Court emphasized the need for caution in expressing repeated doubts about the integrity of EVMs, acknowledging voters’ right to question the functioning of these machines, which directly impact election results. However, the Court stressed that unfounded and persistent doubts could undermine trust in the electoral process, potentially diminishing public participation and confidence in elections, which are vital for a healthy democracy. The Court also highlighted the importance of the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system, noting that it strengthens the principle of vote verifiability and enhances the overall accountability of the electoral process.
Guidelines on Demolitions and Property Rights
In Public Interest Litigation (PIL) hearings that involve allegations of discrimination and government impunity, it is common for the respondent authorities to assert a non-adversarial stance towards the petitioner while denying the allegations. However, a people-centric court is likely to look beyond these claims and scrutinize whether they hold any merit. If the claims lack substance, the court will provide a detailed judicial reasoning, addressing any potential hidden motives of the government.
The hearing in the case In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures by the Supreme Court followed a similar pattern. The petitioners in this case argued that residential and commercial properties were demolished by state authorities without adhering to due legal procedures, based on the allegation that the property owners were involved in criminal activities.
In response to punitive actions by state administrations, the Supreme Court issued national guidelines on demolitions, mandating show cause notices and a 15-day response period before demolitions could take place.
Corporate Law: Adani and Vedanta Cases
In corporate matters, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Adani Group by rejecting a bid to transfer investigations into stock price manipulation. It also dealt a blow to Vedanta by denying the reopening of its copper smelting plant in Thoothukudi, citing environmental concerns.
Jet Airways Liquidation Case
On November 7, the Supreme Court ordered the liquidation of Jet Airways, which had been grounded since 2019, and allowed lenders to encash a performance bank guarantee.
Taxation and Regulation of Industrial Alcohol
In a landmark ruling on October 24, the Supreme Court upheld that states have the power to regulate and tax industrial alcohol, classifying it as “intoxicating liquors” under Entry 8 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. In an 8:1 majority decision, the Court overturned its 1990 judgment, which had placed industrial alcohol under the exclusive jurisdiction of the central government.
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud delivered the majority opinion, with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S. Oka, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih concurring. Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented.
This judgment is regarded as a significant win for state governments, as it strengthens their regulatory and taxation powers over industrial alcohol. States like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Kerala had been advocating for such a ruling, especially after the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), which reduced their revenue-raising capabilities. By categorizing industrial alcohol as “intoxicating liquors,” the Court has restored states’ control, enabling them to impose taxes and regulations that could help curb illegal conversions and generate crucial funds.
The majority opinion focused on the interpretation of “intoxicating liquor” under Entry 8 of the State List. Chief Justice Chandrachud argued that the term “intoxicating” should not be limited to alcohol for human consumption but should include a broader range, covering industrial alcohol, which, though not directly consumed, can be misused to produce intoxicating effects.
Bail for Prolonged Detention and Political Leaders
The Supreme Court granted bail to several prominent political figures, including Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha, and V Senthil Balaji, reinforcing the principle that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.”
In a ruling delivered on Friday, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court stated that while Kejriwal’s arrest was lawful, he should be granted bail while facing the charges against him.
“Prolonged incarceration constitutes an unjust deprivation of liberty,” Justice Surya Kant remarked in the verdict granting bail.
Kejriwal’s release is anticipated to lift the morale of his Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which is a decade old. It will also enable him to campaign in the upcoming regional elections in Haryana, where AAP is working to expand its presence.
Constitutional Bench Rulings
2024 also saw several important constitutional bench rulings, including cases on sub-classification within Scheduled Castes, the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University, and government employment regulations.
The Supreme Court of India, in its review of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling, delivered a landmark judgment granting states the authority to sub-classify reserved category groups, such as Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), for the purpose of reservations. This 6-1 majority decision overturned the 2004 ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, fundamentally altering the reservation landscape in India. The Court ruled that states have the constitutional power to sub-classify SCs and STs based on varying levels of backwardness.
A seven-judge bench decided that states can sub-classify SCs within the 15% reservation quota to provide better support to the most disadvantaged groups. Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud emphasized the distinction between “sub-classification” and “sub-categorisation,” warning against using these classifications for political purposes rather than genuine upliftment. The Court stressed that sub-classifications should be based on empirical data and historical evidence of systemic discrimination, not arbitrary or political motives. It further clarified that states must base sub-classifications on empirical evidence to ensure fairness and effectiveness.
The Court also ruled that no sub-class can receive 100% reservation, and state decisions on sub-classification will be subject to judicial review to prevent political misuse. Additionally, the judgment extended the ‘creamy layer’ principle, which was previously applied only to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) as per the Indra Sawhney case, to SCs and STs, meaning states must identify and exclude the “creamy layer” within these groups from receiving reservation benefits.
The Court also ruled that reservation benefits should only apply to the first generation, meaning if a family member has already benefited from reservations and achieved a higher status, the second generation would not be eligible for such benefits.
In its rationale, the Court acknowledged that systemic discrimination has hindered the progress of some members of SCs and STs, and sub-classification under Article 14 of the Constitution can help address these disparities. This approach enables states to design reservation policies that more effectively support the most disadvantaged within these groups.
Tirupati Laddu Investigation
In response to public concern, the Supreme Court established a special investigation team to look into allegations that animal fat was used in the preparation of Tirupati laddus.
In a case of Dr Subramanian Swamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, the controversy surrounding the Tirupati Laddu revolves around allegations that adulterated ghee was used in the preparation of laddus (prasadam) at the Tirumala Tirupati Temple. On September 18, 2024, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu publicly claimed that during the previous YSRCP government’s tenure, animal fats, including beef fat and fish oil, had been used in the preparation of the laddus. These allegations were based on a laboratory report from the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) regarding ghee samples.
The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), however, has its own internal quality control procedures, including the collection of samples from trucks carrying cow ghee upon arrival. If any material fails to meet the prescribed standards, it is generally returned to the suppliers. In response to the controversy, the Andhra Pradesh government established a Special Investigation Team (SIT) on September 26, 2024, to probe the matter further.
Rape and Death of Kolkata Doctor
Following public outcry over the rape and death of a trainee doctor in Kolkata, the Supreme Court criticized the initial investigation by the West Bengal police and oversaw the CBI’s probe. The Court also formed a National Task Force to ensure the safety of healthcare professionals.
The incident began on August 9 when the body of a post-graduate trainee doctor was found at RG Kar Hospital. The Kolkata Police arrested a civic volunteer the following day, and the CBI assumed control of the investigation on August 13. In October, charges were filed against the accused, Sanjay Roy. Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, who are overseeing the case, stated that the next hearing is scheduled for March 17, 2025, though parties may request an earlier hearing if there are any delays.
Environmental Concerns: Pollution and Firecrackers
The Supreme Court took action against pollution in Delhi, ordering a tree census and urging neighboring states to adopt Delhi’s firecracker ban. It also called for greater efforts to improve green spaces in the city.
On December 12, the Supreme Court instructed the Delhi government and states in the NCR to consider implementing a comprehensive year-round ban on firecrackers, covering their production, storage, sale, distribution, and use. The Court highlighted that such a ban is crucial to addressing both air and noise pollution.
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih instructed the state governments to record and present their decisions on the matter before the apex court.
“The issue regarding ban on use of firecrackers in NCR states is yet to be addressed. We direct the concerned state governments to place their decisions on regard regarding complete ban on use of firecrackers throughout the year,”
-stated the Bench.
The court emphasized that the ban was necessary not only to mitigate air pollution but also to reduce noise pollution.
“We will consider issuing necessary directions to the state governments on the issue of ban on use of firecrackers. When we refer to ban on use of firecrackers, it will also include ban on manufacture, storage, sale and distribution on firecrackers,”
-the Bench further elaborated.
Tough Stance on Judge Remarks and Misconduct
The Court took a firm stance against inappropriate comments from high court judges, warning them against making misogynistic or harmful statements. It addressed issues arising from the remarks of judges in Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka.
The Supreme Court criticized a Karnataka High Court judge’s reference to a Muslim-majority area of Bengaluru as “Pakistan,” calling it “fundamentally wrong under the Constitution.” The Court also cautioned judges against making “casual observations” that reveal communal bias or misogyny during live-streamed judicial proceedings.
A five-judge Special Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, was hearing a suo motu case concerning video clips of Justice V. Srishananda’s “Pakistan” remark and sexist comments directed at a female lawyer during two separate hearings on June 6 and August 28.
The Bench, which included Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, emphasized the importance of judicial restraint in light of widespread reporting and live-streaming of court proceedings, which aims to provide citizens with access to justice. The Bench expressed hope that judges would exercise greater circumspection in the future.
Furthermore, the 16th tenet of the ‘Restatement of the Values of Judicial Life,’ a judicial ethics code adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997, reminds judges to remain aware that they are always under public scrutiny and must avoid any actions or omissions that are unbecoming of their esteemed position.
DND Flyway Toll Relief
The Supreme Court provided relief to commuters in a case of Noida Toll Bridge Company Vs Federation of Noida RWASLP(C) No. 33403/2016 by intervening in the toll issue on the DND flyway, ensuring toll-free access for travelers between Delhi and Noida.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s conclusion that the company had already recovered the costs, returns, and interest from the construction of the 8-lane DND flyway, and therefore, should not collect any further toll.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan stated that the company’s appeal lacked merit and criticized the NOIDA authority for delegating toll collection to the private entity, Noida Toll Bridge Company Limited (NTBCL), which led to unjust enrichment.
The bench further described awarding the contract to NTBCL as “unjust and unfair.”
Looking Ahead to 2025
In 2025, the Supreme Court will handle significant cases, including those on marital rape, the validity of laws on religious places, the hijab ban, and challenges to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. The year will also see three Chief Justices: Justice Khanna retiring in May, Justice B R Gavai taking over until November, and Justice Surya Kant assuming office until 2027.
