From Kejriwal’s arrest to Bilkis Bano, electoral bonds to bulldozer pointers: 2024’s authorized rollercoaster by means of SC’s landmark judgments | India Information – Instances of India

NEW DELHI: This yr, the Supreme Courtroom delivered a number of landmark judgments, shaping the authorized panorama and setting vital precedents for the long run. From bail exceptions for election campaigns to rulings on contentious legal guidelines, the highest court docket addressed a big selection of points.
In a uncommon transfer, the highest court docket granted the previous Delhi chief minister interim bail for 21 days to marketing campaign throughout elections.It additionally dominated on important issues, together with arrests below the UAPA, habeas corpus petitions, challenges to EVM integrity, and prison proceedings over controversial WhatsApp statuses.
Key judgments included criminalising the possession of kid pornography below the POCSO Act, upholding Part 6A of the Citizenship Act in regards to the Assam Accord, and addressing transparency considerations over the Electoral Bonds Scheme. A historic determination noticed the court docket rescind the remission granted to the Bilkis Bano convicts and approve Google Maps location sharing as a bail situation.
The court docket’s critique of arbitrary demolitions stood out, with a bench led by Justices B R Gavai and Ok V Viswanathan condemning the follow as indicative of a “lawless, ruthless state of affairs.” Demolishing properties with out due authorized course of, it famous, violates constitutional rules.
Within the last months of 2024, the Supreme Courtroom restricted contemporary lawsuits below the Locations of Worship Act, 1991, barring interim orders in ongoing instances, together with surveys. With 18 lawsuits involving key non secular websites just like the Gyanvapi Mosque and Mathura’s Shahi Eidgah Masjid, the court docket’s stance may redefine non secular disputes in India.

Lets have an in depth have a look at Supreme Courtroom’s landmark Judgements of 2024:

Arrest of Delhi CM: Authorized complexities and interim aid throughout election season

The Supreme Courtroom on Could 24 granted interim bail to then Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal within the Delhi Liquor Coverage case, permitting him to stay out of custody till 1 June 2024. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, delivering a short order, highlighted a number of key issues. The court docket famous that Kejriwal had already spent appreciable time in custody since March 2024. Justice Khanna remarked, “21 days right here and there wouldn’t make a distinction,” emphasising {that a} brief extension of liberty wouldn’t disrupt the broader judicial course of.
The bench burdened the significance of balancing investigative considerations with the basic rights of people, significantly the best to liberty below Article 21 of the Structure. It acknowledged the distinctive context of the upcoming Lok Sabha elections, suggesting that the choice was based mostly on quick circumstances relatively than establishing a basic precedent for election-related bail pleas.
Whereas granting the aid, the court docket avoided offering detailed reasoning, indicating {that a} complete judgment would comply with. This interim bail permits Kejriwal to actively take part within the 2024 Lok Sabha marketing campaign whereas guaranteeing his return to judicial custody on 2 June 2024.
Little one abuse: Supreme Courtroom tightens authorized framework for little one pornography below POCSO Act
In a ruling on September 23, the Supreme Courtroom, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala, declared that possession, viewing, or storage of kid pornography constitutes an offence below the Safety of Youngsters from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Overturning a Madras Excessive Courtroom determination, the bench clarified that possession is independently punishable, reinforcing little one safety legal guidelines.
The Courtroom highlighted distinct offences below Part 15 of the POCSO Act. Subsection 15(1) penalises failure to delete or report such materials, whereas 15(2) imposes as much as three years’ imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute. Moreover, it expanded the scope of Part 67B of the IT Act to incorporate possession and consumption, past publication or transmission.
Justice Pardiwala urged Parliament to switch “little one pornography” with “little one sexual exploitative and abuse materials” (CSEAM) for larger accuracy. Social media accountability, intercourse training, and sufferer help have been additionally emphasised. Reinstating prison proceedings in opposition to S. Harish, the Courtroom directed a fast-track trial, marking progress in combating little one sexual exploitation.

Validity of Part 6A of the Citizenship Act: Supreme Courtroom delivers break up verdict

The Supreme Courtroom’s Structure Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, upheld Part 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, in a 4:1 majority verdict, with Justice J.B. Pardiwala dissenting. Part 6A, launched to implement the Assam Accord (1985), grants citizenship to Bangladeshi immigrants who entered Assam earlier than 1 January 1966 and conditional voting rights to these arriving between 1 January 1966 and 24 March 1971, after a ready interval.
Petitioners argued that Part 6A undermines Assam’s cultural identification and violates Article 14’s equality assure. The Union authorities defended it as a professional legislative motion below Article 11, geared toward preserving Assam’s multicultural character.
Chief Justice Chandrachud upheld the 24 March 1971 closing date, dismissing considerations about cultural dilution below Article 29. Justice Surya Kant affirmed Parliament’s authority to legislate on citizenship and rejected procedural challenges. Justice Pardiwala dissented, prospectively invalidating Part 6A(3), cautioning it may perpetuate migration and not using a outlined restrict.

Electoral Bonds Scheme: Supreme Courtroom strikes down controversial mechanism

The Supreme Courtroom on February 15 unanimously struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, declaring that it violated voters’ proper to info below Article 19(1)(a) of the Structure. The Courtroom ordered the quick cessation of the sale of electoral bonds and directed the State Financial institution of India (SBI) to reveal all electoral bond transactions since April 2019. It additionally mandated the Election Fee of India (ECI) to publish these particulars on its web site by 13 March 2024.
Launched within the 2017-18 Finances by Union finance minister Arun Jaitley, the Electoral Bonds Scheme aimed to boost transparency in political funding by providing bearer devices that ensured confidentiality for each donors and recipients. Nonetheless, it confronted widespread criticism from NGOs, political events, and the Election Fee for undermining transparency and enabling overseas entities to contribute to political events. The Supreme Courtroom’s judgment got here after intensive deliberations, with the Courtroom ruling that the scheme infringed on the general public’s proper to details about political funding, additional calling for larger transparency in electoral finance.

Bilkis Bano case: Withdrawal of remission granted to the convicts

The Supreme Courtroom on January 8 led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, nullified the remission orders that prematurely launched 11 convicts within the Bilkis Bano gangrape case and directed their return to jail inside two weeks. The 251-page judgment addressed jurisdiction, maintainability, and basic rights, marking a major stance on justice and victims’ rights.
The Courtroom upheld Bilkis Bano’s petition below Article 32, asserting her rights below Articles 14 and 21 of the Structure. It rejected the argument that she ought to have approached the Gujarat Excessive Courtroom below Article 226, highlighting the Supreme Courtroom’s authority to intervene instantly in such issues. The ruling referenced a previous petition by convict Radhe Shyam to validate Bano’s method.
Below Part 432(7) of the Felony Process Code, the Courtroom clarified that Maharashtra, the place the trial was held, had jurisdiction over remission selections—not Gujarat. It criticised Gujarat’s actions as “complicit” and deemed the Could 2022 Supreme Courtroom order allowing the remission as per incuriam (legally invalid resulting from oversight).

Arrests below the Illegal Actions (Prevention) Act, 1967: Challenges associated to such arrests

The Supreme Courtroom on Could 15, 2024, dominated that the best to life and private liberty is essentially the most sacrosanct of basic rights. It directed that people arrested below the Illegal Actions Prevention Act (UAPA) should be supplied with a written copy of the grounds for his or her arrest. This allows them to seek the advice of a lawyer, problem police custody remand, and search bail.
The Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, utilized rules from its earlier ruling within the Pankaj Bansal case (in regards to the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act) to arrests below the UAPA. Justice Mehta highlighted that there isn’t a substantial distinction between the related provisions of the 2 statutes. Rejecting the Union authorities’s objection, the Courtroom said that justice and honest play should be upheld equally below each legal guidelines.

Integrity of EVMs: Challenges to the reliability of Digital Voting Machines

In Affiliation for Democratic Reforms v. Election Fee of India (2024 INSC 341), the Supreme Courtroom upheld the prevailing system of utilizing Digital Voting Machines (EVMs) with restricted Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Path (VVPAT) verification. The Courtroom dismissed calls for for 100% VVPAT verification, citing logistical challenges, delays, and dangers of human error, and rejected calls to return to paper ballots, deeming them impractical for India’s massive citizens.
The Courtroom affirmed the adequacy of the present course of, the place VVPAT slips are verified for transparency, and launched two directives: (1) securely sealing image loading models for 45 days post-election and (2) permitting candidates ranked second or third to request a 5% verification of EVM reminiscence, with prices refunded if tampering is discovered. This determination reinforces the credibility of EVMs whereas enhancing safeguards for election transparency.

Habeas corpus petitions: Securing the discharge of relationship companions from familial custody

In Appellant v. Secretary of the District Authorized Companies Authority (2024), the Supreme Courtroom dominated on a habeas corpus petition filed by the Appellant looking for the discharge of her same-sex associate, ‘X,’ allegedly confined by her mother and father. The Kerala Excessive Courtroom had beforehand ordered counselling for ‘X,’ which the Appellant contested as infringing upon ‘X’s’ autonomy.
The Supreme Courtroom directed that ‘X’ be introduced earlier than the Household Courtroom in Kollam to establish her needs. Experiences indicated that ‘X’ voluntarily expressed a want to give attention to her profession and reside together with her mother and father, describing the Appellant as an “intimate buddy” with out intent for cohabitation or marriage. Respecting ‘X’s’ autonomy, the Courtroom declined additional intervention.
The judgment emphasised safeguarding LGBTQ+ rights, condemning coercive practices geared toward altering sexual orientation or gender identification. It additionally issued pointers prioritising the detained particular person’s needs, guaranteeing non-discrimination, police safety if crucial, and recognising chosen households as a part of constitutional protections.

Pointers to curb unlawful bulldozer demolitions: Supreme Courtroom points procedural safeguards

In a landmark ruling in September 2024, the Supreme Courtroom addressed the contentious situation of unlawful bulldozer demolitions, significantly these focusing on minority communities. The judgment was triggered by latest demolitions, together with the house of a Muslim auto-rickshaw driver following an alleged stabbing incident involving his tenant’s son.
The Courtroom declared such demolitions a violation of basic rights, significantly the best to shelter, and criticised the manager’s function as each decide and jury, bypassing due course of. It emphasised that these actions undermined the rule of regulation and couldn’t be justified.
To stop additional unlawful demolitions, the Courtroom launched key procedural pointers:

Acknowledging that over 150,000 properties had been destroyed previously two years, predominantly affecting Muslim households, the Courtroom’s ruling sought to curb govt overreach and reinforce the rules of equity and justice.

Minority standing of AMU: Aligarh Muslim College v Naresh Agarwal

The Supreme Courtroom in a historic judgement overruled a 57-year-old precedent set by the five-judge bench in Azeez Basha v Union of India (1967), which had dominated that Aligarh Muslim College (AMU) didn’t have minority standing below Article 30 of the Structure as a result of it was established by means of a Union laws, the AMU Act of 1920.
In a 4:3 majority determination, the Courtroom held that establishments integrated by a authorized instrument can nonetheless declare minority standing if the founder belonged to a minority neighborhood. The judgment successfully shifted the authorized stance on minority academic establishments, clarifying that the mere involvement of the state within the institution of an establishment doesn’t strip it of minority standing if it was based by members of a minority group.
The Courtroom additionally laid down particular parameters to find out whether or not a spiritual or linguistic academic establishment qualifies for minority standing below Article 30. This was the primary time in 75 years that the Supreme Courtroom offered such detailed pointers.