2024 in Supreme Court: Eight judgements which will reverberate

Eight Supreme Court rulings that have had a significant impact.

Of the many important judicial verdicts in 2024, there were eight which stood out. A related event was the retirement of Chief Justice DY Chandrchud, who not only had a relatively long tenure but was on benches which delivered key judgements. He was replaced in November by Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Electoral Bonds Judgement

The Supreme Court on February 15 held the Electoral Bonds Scheme as unconstitutional. Electoral Bonds which was a kind of promissory note was an instrument of funding political parties since 2018. The apex court while declaring the scheme unconstitutional held that Electoral Bonds are violative of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Electoral Bonds Scheme was aimed at checking the use of black money for funding elections but was criticised for lack of transparency.

Judgement on Immunity to MPs/MLAs in Bribery Cases 

On March 4 Supreme Court’s seven-judge bench led by then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra held that the Members of Parliament and legislative assemblies cannot claim immunity for receiving bribes for vote or speech in the legislature. The SC held, "We disagree with and overrule the judgement of the majority on this aspect. We have concluded that first, the doctrine of stare decisis is not an inflexible rule of law. A larger bench of this court may reconsider a previous decision in appropriate cases bearing in mind the tests which have been formulated by this court. The judgement in the PV Narasimha Rao case, which grants immunity from prosecution to a member of a legislature who has allegedly engaged in bribery for casting a vote or making a speech has wide ramifications on public interest, probity in public life, and parliamentary democracy. There is a grave danger of this court allowing the error to be perpetuated if the decision were not reconsidered".

Judgement on maintenance to divorced women 

On July 10, the Supreme Court held that a Muslim woman divorced by her husband is entitled to seek maintenance as per Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court held that equivalent rights of maintenance ascertained under both, the secular provision of Section 125 of CrPC 1973, and the personal law provision of Section 3 of the 1986 Act, exist in parallel in their distinct domains and jurisprudence. Thereby, leading to their harmonious construction and continued existence of the right to seek maintenance for a divorced Muslim woman under the provisions of CrPC 1973 despite the enactment of the 1986 Act.

Judgement on Sub-Classification 

In a judgement that will have a significant impact on the reservation policy, the Supreme Court on August 1 allowed the sub-classification of classes. A 7-judge bench (with one judge dissenting) of the Supreme Court ruled that the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes is permissible to grant separate quotas for more backward groups within the SC categories. This judgement has overruled the earlier decision in the EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh case, which held that 'Scheduled Castes' notified under Article 341 form one homogeneous group and that sub-categorization is not permissible.

Validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955

On October 17 the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, an important clause implementing Section 5 of Assam Accord. On a dissenting note, Justice JB Pardiwala while holding Section 6A as unconstitutional held that, "Section 6A has acquired unconstitutionality with the efflux of time. The efflux of time has brought to light the element of manifest arbitrariness in the scheme of Section 6A(3) which fails to provide a temporal limit to its applicability".

The judgement related to Article 39(b) of the Constitution

On November 6, Supreme Court with an 8-1 majority held that not all private properties can be distributed by the State as "material resources of the community" for the common good as per Article 39(b) of the Constitution. In the Property Owners Association & Ors. Versus State of Maharashtra, the apex court reversed its earlier decision in a case titled ‘Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co. v. Bharat Coking Limited’ wherein it was held that privately owned resources must also be considered material resources of the community. A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih delivered the judgement with Justice Nagarathna partially concurring with the majority and Justice Dhulia dissenting.

Judgement in Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Education Act Case

On November 5, Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 'Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act 2004' and set aside the Allahabad High Court's judgement which had struck it down earlier. “The State has an interest in maintaining the standards of education in minority institutions and may impose regulational conditions for grant of aid and recognition. The Constitutional scheme allows the State to strike a balance between ensuring the standard of excellence and preserving the right of the minorities to establish and administer its educational institutions,” the judgement said.

Judgement on “Bulldozer Justice”

On November 13, the Supreme Court put a break on the “bulldozer justice”. The court made it clear that the government could not transform itself into a judge to find an accused guilty without trial and deliver a collective punishment to him and his family by wrecking their home and their shared memories with a bulldozer. “The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where might was right,” a Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan observed.

Other controversies and changes

Some changes initiated by former CJI Justice Chandrachud became a talking point in legal circles. The decision to change the design of the statue of Lady Justice and the top court's emblem attracted criticisms from the Supreme Court Bar Association. Apart from this the apex court’s decision to set up a museum to replace the erstwhile Judges' Library also faced objections. However, the decision to do away with the requirement of a law degree for journalists seeking accreditation to cover the Supreme Court was well received.

One of the most significant changes that will have a good impact in dealing with pendency at the apex court was the scrapping of summer breaks in the Supreme Court. CJI Chandrachud scrapped summer breaks and announced that now there would only be "partial court working days”. According to the amended rules, which came into force immediately, the partial working days will begin from May 26, 2025, and full working days will resume from July 14, 2025.