In 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered landmark judgments that shaped the nation’s legal and social framework. Addressing diverse issues, the Court balanced individual rights, accountability, and sustainability, reaffirming its commitment to justice and constitutional values amidst modern challenges.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI : In the year 2024, the Supreme Court of India played a pivotal role in shaping the nation’s legal and social landscape through a series of impactful judgments. Addressing a wide range of issues, the Court emphasized the importance of balancing individual rights, institutional accountability, and environmental sustainability. Its rulings demonstrated a commitment to safeguarding constitutional principles, promoting justice, and responding to contemporary challenges.
The court gave the following landmark decisions on matters such as legislative immunity, environmental conservation, child protection, and healthcare safety:
1.Constitutional Validity of Sub-Classification Within Reserved Categories
In a landmark judgment shaping the country’s affirmative action jurisprudence, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the authority of states to create sub-classifications within the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories. Delivering a 6:1 majority decision, the bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, overturned the precedent set in E.V. Chinnaiah v. Union of India (2004).
The court reasoned that sub-classification is permissible to achieve “substantive equality,” as different communities within the SC/ST lists experience varying levels of discrimination and inequality. However, the judgment stipulated that any law introducing such sub-classification must be supported by empirical evidence and would remain subject to judicial scrutiny.
Following the verdict, several state governments expressed their intent to implement sub-classifications. Haryana was the first to act, with the Nayab Singh Saini-led BJP government approving the Haryana Scheduled Caste Commission Report, which recommended a 10% ‘sub-quota’ for deprived SCs in government jobs. Similarly, Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy recently announced that the Commission formed by his government to examine sub-classification would soon submit its report. The Congress government in Telangana has affirmed its support for the Madiga community, which has been at the forefront of advocating for sub-classification.
Case Title :State of Punjab and Ors. v Davinder Singh and Ors.
Citation: 2024 INSC 562
Click here to read the judgement
2. Validity of the Electoral Bonds Scheme
Ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the 2018 Electoral Bond (EB) Scheme in a landmark decision by a five-judge bench. The apex court ruled that voters have a right to know the sources of political party funding.
The EB Scheme had permitted corporations, individuals, and organizations to make anonymous donations to political parties. However, the Court found the scheme inadequate, stating that it was necessary to protect donors from potential retaliation by rival political parties.
Declaring the scheme inconsistent with the principles of free and fair elections, the Court ordered an immediate stop of bond sales and directed the Election Commission and the State Bank of India to publicly disclose all data collected on electoral bond transactions.
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms v Union Of India
Citation: 2024 INSC 113
Click here to read the judgement
3. Revocation of Remission Granted to Bilkis Bano Convicts
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court overturned the Gujarat government’s order granting remission to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case. The convicts, sentenced to life imprisonment for the gang rape of Bano and the murder of her family during the 2002 Gujarat Riots, had committed atrocities that shocked the nation. Given that the sentencing occurred in Mumbai, the Court ruled that the Maharashtra government was the appropriate authority to decide on remission.
The judgment noted that the Gujarat government knowingly entertained the convicts’ application despite lacking jurisdiction and proceeded to grant remission. It criticized the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government for acting “in tandem” with the convicts.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna emphasized that,
“Remission should only be considered for convicts who uphold the rule of law.”
The Court also reaffirmed that while the power to grant remission lies with the administration, judicial review ensures that such decisions are lawful, empowering courts to quash remission orders when necessary.
Case name: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v Union of India
Case citation: 2024 INSC 24
Click here to read the judgement
4. Taxation of Mines and Minerals
This landmark decision by 9 judge bench of the Supreme Court addressed the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and state governments.
In Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, an 8:1 majority held that Parliament’s authority to legislate on mines and minerals under List I of the Seventh Schedule could not encroach upon the states’ powers under List II.
Case Title: Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India
Citation: 2024 INSC 607
Click here to read the judgement
5.Regulation of Industrial Alcohol
This was another landmark judgement , of 9 judge bench which laid down the distribution of powers between , the centre and union of states
In State of UP v. Lalta Prasad Vaish, a comparable majority ruled that the Union’s powers to legislate on subjects in List I could not override the states’ jurisdiction over industrial alcohol, a subject reserved for them under List II.
Case title : State of UP v. Lalta Prasad Vaish & Sons
Citation: 2024 INSC 812
Click here to read the judgement
6. Criteria for the determination of a minority educational institution.
The Supreme Court, by a 4-3 majority, overruled the Azeez Basha judgment. The majority ruled that an institution does not lose its minority status merely because it was established through a statute. They further held that Article 30(1) safeguards institutions founded even before the Constitution came into effect in 1950.
Additionally, the Court outlined criteria for identifying minority institutions eligible for protection under Article 30(1).
The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Chandrachud, while Justices Kant, Datta, and Sharma authored separate, partially dissenting opinions.
Case Title : Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Registrar Faizan Mustafa Vs Naresh Agarwal
Citation: 2024 INSC 856
Click here to read the judgement
7. Validity of unilateral appointment of arbitrators in public-private contract
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a 3:2 majority, ruled that clauses in arbitration agreements granting one party the unilateral right to appoint sole arbitrators are impermissible. While public sector undertakings (PSUs) may appoint potential arbitrators, requiring the other party to choose from a pre-curated panel violates the principle of party equality. The Court emphasized that equal treatment of parties must be upheld at all stages of arbitration, including the appointment of arbitrators.
The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Chandrachud and supported by Justices Misra and Pardiwala, held such clauses invalid. In their partially dissenting opinions, Justice Roy argued that unilateral appointments are not inherently invalid unless they fall under the Seventh Schedule prohibitions, while Justice Narasimha maintained that courts should assess whether a specific unilateral appointment should be barred.
Case Title: Central Organisation for railway electrification VS M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV), a joint venture company
Citation: 2024 INSC 857
Click here to read the judgement
8. Scope of the words “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution
The Supreme Court , in its landmark judgement, decided upon the issues,
(i) What is the correct interpretation of Article 31C of the Constitution after the judgment of Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980 INSC 142 ) (“Minerva Mills”)?
(ii) Whether privately owned property constitutes ‘material resources of the community’ which can be acquired and distributed by the state in furtherance of Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, by a 7-2 majority, ruled that not all private property qualifies as “material resources of the community” under Articles 39(b) and (c) for acquisition and redistribution by the State. This decision overruled the precedent set in Sanjeev Coke, which held that private resources also fall within the ambit of material resources of the community. The majority judgment was authored by Chief Justice Chandrachud.
Justice Nagarathna, in a partially dissenting opinion, argued that all privately owned resources, except “personal effects,” could be deemed “material resources of the community” and could be converted into community resources through measures like nationalization or acquisition.
Justice Dhulia also dissented, emphasizing the vast income and wealth inequalities and supporting the broader interpretation of “material resources of the community” adopted in Ranganatha Reddy and Sanjeev Coke.
All nine judges unanimously held that Article 31-C continues to shield statutes from being invalidated under Articles 14 and 19 if they aim to implement Articles 39(b) and (c), as interpreted in this judgment. The constitutionality of the MHADA Act will now be determined by a regular bench in light of the principles established in this case.
Case Title : Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra
Citation : 2024 INSC 835
Click here to read the judgement
9. Constitutional challenge against Section 6A of Citizenship Act, 1955
A Constitution Bench (five judges) of the Supreme Court by a majority of 4:1 upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A. Justice Kant on behalf of himself and Justices Sundresh and Mishra authored the majority opinion and Chief Justice Chandrachud authored a separate concurring opinion.
Justice Pardiwala authored a dissenting judgment declaring Section 6A invalid.
In response to the contention that Section 6A was not being adequately enforced, the majority issued the following directions:
- The directions issued in Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India (2005 INSC 287) should be followed to deport the illegal migrants who entered after 1971.
- The provisions of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 should be integrated with Section 6A for identifying illegal immigrants.
- The current statutory framework and tribunals for identifying illegal immigrants in Assam are inadequate and must be enhanced to enforce the legislative intent of Section 6A in a time-bound manner.
Case Title : In Re Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955
Citation: 2024 INSC 789
![[Citizenship Act] '4:1 Majority Verdict': SC Upholds Constitutionality of Section 6A Recognising Assam Accord](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/17-10-2024-11-25-38-973.jpeg?resize=820%2C429&ssl=1)
10. Power of constitutional courts to grant bail for offences in statutes with stringent bail conditions
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that constitutional courts have the power to grant bail on the grounds of long incarceration and delay in the completion of trial for which the accused is not responsible, even in those offences in which there are higher thresholds for the grant of bail. The Court held that although Section 45 of the PMLA has a high threshold for granting bail, such provisions should not become tools to incarcerate accused persons without a trial . The Court ruled that if the incarceration of an undertrial accused is continued for an unreasonably long time, this would be violative of their right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution .
Thus, the Court held that the Appellant’s indefinite detention would violate his right to liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled that a reasonable time will depend on the provisions under which the accused is being tried and other factors such as the duration of the minimum and maximum sentence for the offence and any higher thresholds which a law provides for the grant of bail.
Case Title: V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director
Citation : 2024 INSC 739
Click here to read the judgement
11. Whether viewing child sexual exploitation and abuse material is punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
As a result of this Supreme Court’s judgment in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish on September 24, 2024, India has joined the ranks of countries that explicitly criminalize the viewing, storing, and possession of “child pornography.” In his judgment, Justice J.B. Pardiwala objected to the use of this term in formal contexts, advocating instead for the phrases “child sexual abuse and exploitative material” (CSEAM).
For years, High Courts had dealt with whether the mere possession of explicit videos involving children fell within the scope of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). Justice Pardiwala, along with former Chief Justice Chandrachud, clarified that Section 15 of the POCSO Act explicitly criminalizes both possession of such material and the failure to delete or destroy it, as well as possession with the intent to distribute.
Justice Pardiwala also ruled that the “safe harbour” clause under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which shields intermediaries from liability for third-party content, does not extend to cases involving child sexual abuse material. Intermediaries must “expeditiously” remove such content once notified by the government, or they risk losing their safe harbour protection. This ruling has posed significant challenges for social media intermediaries, who have expressed concerns over the practical difficulties of ensuring compliance.
Case Title : Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish
Citation : 2024 INSC 716
Click here to read the judgement
12. Urgent need to formulate institutional safety measures for medical professionals
The Supreme Court established a nine-member National Task Force to develop a national protocol ensuring the safety of doctors and medical professionals across the country. The Task Force was tasked with formulating effective recommendations to address issues related to the safety, working conditions, and well-being of medical professionals, along with other related matters. Its action plan was divided into two key areas: (i) preventing violence, including gender-based violence, against medical professionals; and (ii) creating an enforceable national protocol to ensure dignified and safe working conditions for interns, residents, senior residents, doctors, nurses, and all medical professionals.
The Court also directed the CBI to submit a status report by August 22, 2024, detailing the progress of its investigation. Additionally, the State of West Bengal was instructed to file a status report by the same date on the progress of its inquiry into the acts of vandalism that occurred at the hospital following the incident.
Case Title : In Re: Alleged Rape And Murder Incident Of A Trainee Doctor In R.G. Kar Medical College And Hospital, Kolkata And Related Issues
Citation: 2024 INSC 613
Click here to read the judgement
![[RG-Kar Rape-Murder] Custodial Torture Of Two Women, SC Revokes CBI Probe, Orders SIT Investigation](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/image-1-1.jpeg?resize=800%2C445&ssl=1)
13. Steps needed to protect the Great Indian Bustard from potential extinction.
A Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, emphasizing the urgent need to protect the Great Indian Bustard, overturned its interim order dated April 19, 2021. The Court ruled that a blanket ban on solar power transmission lines across a 99,000-square-kilometer area is unwarranted, citing technical challenges in converting all lines to underground systems. The judgment was authored by former Chief Justice Chandrachud.
Acknowledging the delicate balance between biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation, the Court stressed the importance of a nuanced approach. It constituted an expert committee with a broad mandate to evaluate the feasibility of underground transmission lines, assess the effectiveness of bird diverters, and submit its findings by July 31, 2024.
Case Title : M.K. Ranjitsinh V. Union Of India
Citation : 2024 INSC 280
Click here to read the judgement
14. Suitable term of imprisonment for murder
The Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Appellant’s conviction but reduced the sentence for the offence of murder from thirty years without remission, to twenty-five years without remission, including the period already served. The judgement of the Court was authored by Justice Viswanathan.
The Supreme Court illustratively laid down the aggravating and mitigating circumstances for determining the minimum sentence (without remission) to be imposed while commuting a death sentence. In the present case, the Court held that the relatively young age of the Appellant when he committed the crime (twenty eight years), the absence of any financial motive, and no attempt to escape from the crime scene, were mitigating factors.
The fact that the decision primarily relied on circumstantial evidence and the Appellant had already served more than eighteen years in jail while showcasing positive conduct throughout, further influenced the decision to reduce the sentence.
Case Title : Navas @ Mulanavas V. State Of Kerala
Citation : 2024 INSC 215
Click here to read the Judgement
15. Whether a legislator enjoys constitutional immunity from accusations of accepting bribes in connection with their vote in Parliament or a state legislature.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that legislators are not entitled to immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution of India for acts of bribery. This decision, delivered by a Seven-Judge Bench, overturned the precedent set in P.V. Narasimha Rao.
The Court established a dual criterion for granting legislative immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2): immunity applies only if the activity is part of a collective legislative function and is intrinsically connected to the legislator’s duties. The judgment was authored by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
Case Title : Sita Soren v. Union Of India
Citation : 2024 INSC 161
Click here to read the judgement
16. Whether interim orders passed by High Courts automatically expire after six months
The Constitution Bench unanimously held that an automatic expiration of interim orders after a period of six months is impermissible. Further, the Court held that issuing blanket directions that the High Courts should hear all cases where interim stays are operating on a daily basis and decide them within a stipulated time frame was beyond the powers of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution to do complete justice.
The judgment of the Court was authored by Justice Oka, while Justice Mithal wrote a separate concurring opinion.
Case Title : High Court Bar Association Allahabad V. The State Of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2024 INSC 150
Click here to read the judgement
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Supreme Court
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE