Supreme Court docket’s High 10 Rulings of 2024: A 12 months of Groundbreaking Selections

From tackling politically delicate issues to establishing new elementary rights, the Supreme Court docket of India made information in 2024 with some exceptionally groundbreaking rulings.

Right here is our rating of the highest 10 rulings of 2024 because the 12 months attracts to an in depth. These selections are notable for having profound results on politics, the economic system, and society.

1. Bail for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal | Arvind Kejriwal v Directorate of Enforcement

The strict interpretation of the bail necessities beneath the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, was loosened by the Arvind Kejriwal bail case.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) detained Kejriwal on suspicion of involvement within the Delhi Liquor Coverage fraud. In relation to the identical scheme, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) additionally arrested him on corruption allegations.

The Supreme Court docket identified that Kejriwal had been imprisoned for prolonged durations of time and that it was unlikely that his case would go to trial anytime quickly.

2. Possessing baby pornography punishable beneath POCSO Act | Simply Rights for Kids Alliance vs S Harish

Following the Supreme Court docket’s ruling in Simply Rights for Kids Alliance vs S Harish on September 24, 2024, India has joined a choose group of nations which have made it unlawful to observe, retailer, or possess “baby pornography”.

Justice J.B. Pardiwala emphasised in his ruling that the time period ought to be known as “baby sexual abuse and exploitative materials,” or “CSEAM,” and objected to its use in formal settings.

Excessive Courts have been unable to return to a logical conclusion for years on whether or not “mere possession” of obscene motion pictures that includes kids was coated by the Safety of Kids from Sexual Offences Act.

3. State’s energy to control industrial alcohol | State of UP vs M/S. Lalta Prasad Vaish and Sons

This lawsuit issues whether or not the State Legislature has the proper to manage ‘industrial alcohol’ beneath the phrases “intoxicating liquors” in Entry 8 of Record II of the Structure’s seventh Schedule.

When the Uttar Pradesh authorities imposed a license charge on the sale of denatured spirits (industrial alcohol rendered undrinkable), it was challenged, and the Allahabad Excessive Court docket overturned it, prompting this attraction.

The Synthetics case was overturned by the Supreme Court docket, which dominated 8 to 1 in favour of the State’s authority to manage industrial alcohol.

The Synthetics & Chemical substances vs State of UP ruling from 1989 restricted state authority over industrial alcohol by ruling that “intoxicating liquor” solely coated drinkable alcohol.

Since alcohol could also be abused to trigger drunkenness, the courtroom dominated that every one forms of alcohol, together with industrial alcohol, are thought of “intoxicating liquors” beneath Entry 8. Dissenting Justice Nagarathna argued that industrial alcohol just isn’t consumable by nature, therefore, it doesn’t match throughout the class of “intoxicating liquors” and is due to this fact nonetheless beneath Union supervision.

4. Withdrawal of remission granted to Bilkis Bano convicts | Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs Union of India

The Supreme Court docket’s first main ruling in 2024, which overturned the Gujarat authorities’s order to free 11 prisoners within the Bilkis Bano case, acquired widespread consideration.

The defendants had been sentenced to life in jail for the gang rape and homicide of Bano’s household through the Gujarat riots of 2002. It was against the law that outraged the conscience of an enormous portion of the nation.

Notably, the offenders had been convicted in Mumbai, therefore the Maharashtra authorities is the proper authority to think about remission.

The decision implies that the Gujarat authorities was conscious of the prisoners’ malice in interesting to the inaccurate authorities however nonetheless evaluated their utility.

The choice stated that the Gujarat authorities, led by the Bharatiya Janata Social gathering, labored “in tandem” with the prisoners.

Justice BV Nagarathna’s determination emphasised that remission petitions could solely be thought of if offenders observe the rule of legislation. Moreover, the verdicts held that, whereas the choice to launch convicts is within the administrative area, courts have the proper to overturn remission orders.

5. Validity of the Electoral Bonds Scheme | Affiliation of Democratic Reforms vs Union of India

A five-judge courtroom overturned the 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme forward of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The EB Scheme enabled companies, people, and organisations to make nameless donations to political events.

On February 15, 2024, the courtroom unanimously dominated that voters had the proper to learn concerning the sources of get together funding. The courtroom decided that the 2018 scheme was not flawless and didn’t meet the Union’s function for wishing to safeguard funders from destructive actions by competing political events.

In an effort to advertise free and honest elections, the Court docket put a right away halt to bond gross sales and directed the Election Fee and the State Financial institution of India to publicly launch the information they’d beforehand gathered on EB transactions.

Researchers, journalists, and residents combed by the information, making hyperlinks between donations and, on the one hand, profitable authorities contracts and the sudden termination of legal investigations.

In August, nonetheless, the Court docket rejected to type a Particular Investigation Workforce to research fees of quid professional quo, claiming that the allegations had been solely “assumptions.”

6. Validity of sub-classification inside reserved classes | State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh

In a landmark determination on affirmative motion legislation within the nation, a seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court docket recognised states’ authority to create sub-categories contained in the reserved Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe classes (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 bulk argued that sub-classification was acceptable to offer “substantive equality” since completely different communities on the SC/ST listing skilled differing ranges of discrimination and inequality. Nevertheless, the bench dominated that any statute establishing sub-classifications have to be supported by empirical knowledge and can be open to judicial scrutiny.

Following the choice, some state governments indicated that they had been desirous to push sub-classification.

7. Constitutional validity of Part 6A of Citizenship Act, 1955

Assam had an inflow of immigrants following the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation Conflict.

Responding to native demonstrations, the Union Authorities signed the Assam Accord on August 15, 1985, which granted immigrants specific citizenship provisions beneath Part 6A of the Citizenship Act.

This clause granted citizenship to Indian immigrants arriving earlier than January 1, 1966, whereas these coming into between January 1, 1966 and March 24, 1971, had been eligible for citizenship beneath particular situations.

This lawsuit known as into doubt the constitutionality of Part 6A beneath Articles 11, 14, 29, 326, and 355, notably in mild of its influence on Assam’s demography and indigenous id.

The case was referred to a Structure Bench in 2014 due to its difficult constitutional penalties.

The Supreme Court docket confirmed the legality of Part 6A by a 4:1 majority. Justice Surya Kant wrote the bulk opinion (for himself, Justices Sundresh, and Mishra), which was endorsed by the CJI’s concurring opinion. Justice Pardiwala dissented, calling Part 6A unconstitutional.

8. Problem 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 beneath Article 32 of the Indian Structure difficult a number of clauses in state jail manuals that inspired caste-based segregation and discrimination.

Some restrictions included legal guidelines akin to allocating specified chores (e.g., sweeping) to convicts of particular castes and designating “appropriate” castes for cooking or safety duties. Shantha contended that these clauses discriminated towards individuals on the premise of caste, in violation of their elementary rights.

The Supreme Court docket deemed the challenged components in jail manuals unlawful, citing infringement of a number of constitutional articles, together with Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23.

The Court docket ordered all states to revise their jail manuals to eradicate caste-based discrimination and to take away caste references from prisoner registries.

Moreover, the Union Authorities was directed to replace the Mannequin Jail Handbook 2016 and the Mannequin Prisons and Correctional Providers Act, 2023, inside three months to replicate these amendments.

9. Institutional security measures for medical professionals | Kolkata homicide & rape case 

A postgraduate trainee physician working a 36-hour shift at RG Kar Medical School in Kolkata was found lifeless and reportedly raped in a hospital lecture room on August 9, 2024. The occasion sparked widespread indignation, with images of the deceased spreading on social media.

Initially, medical officers knowledgeable the household that the dying was a suicide; however, additional inquiry resulted in a FIR for homicide.

Issues concerning the investigation’s integrity led the Calcutta Excessive Court docket to refer the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Following this, a crowd vandalised the hospital’s emergency division, prompting the Indian Medical Affiliation to launch a statewide strike to demand improved security for healthcare personnel.

The occasion sparked critical issues concerning the security and dealing surroundings of medical personnel, notably these working late hours.

Recognising the gravity of the state of affairs, SC fashioned a 9-person nationwide Activity Pressure to develop a nationwide protocol for the safety of physicians and medical personnel. This Activity Pressure was tasked with focussing on two areas:

•       Stopping violence, notably gender-based violence towards medical employees, and

•       Growing enforceable security rules to offer dignified and safe working situations for healthcare professionals.

As well as, the Court docket directed the CBI and the State of West Bengal to offer standing updates on the homicide and vandalism investigations by August 22, 2024, respectively.

10. Is Delhi LG sure by support & recommendation of NCT’s elected govt when nominating MCD members?

The Municipal Company of Delhi (MCD) has 260 members, of whom 250 are elected and 10 are nominated by the LG beneath Part 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Company Act, 1957.

Article 239AA(4) of the Structure requires the LG to behave with the assistance and recommendation of the Delhi Authorities’s Council of Ministers on topics throughout the Delhi Meeting’s legislative jurisdiction. Nevertheless, there’s an exemption if the LG is required to behave in discretion “by or beneath any legislation.”

Following the Aam Aadmi Social gathering’s victory within the MCD election in December 2022, the LG appointed 10 members with out consulting the Delhi authorities. The Delhi authorities contested this appointment within the Supreme Court docket, claiming that the LG ought to have adopted its recommendation.

The Supreme Court docket declared that the LG just isn’t sure by the Delhi Authorities’s assist and recommendation whereas nominating members to the MCD beneath Part 3(3)(b)(i) of the DMC Act. Justice Narasimha wrote the choice, saying that the DMC Act, handed by Parliament, expressly permits the LG to behave independently on this case.