Yearender 2024: The year 2024 has been a landmark period for India's judiciary, with the Supreme Court delivering several crucial judgments that have reshaped the legal, social, and political landscape of the nation. From granting remission to the convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang rape case to striking down the electoral bonds scheme, the apex court's ruling have sparked widespread debates and discussions nationwide. As the year comes to a close, we take a look back at 10 of the most impactful Supreme Court judgments of 2024.
10 big Supreme Court judgments in 2024
Let's take a look at the landmark Supreme Court judgments of 2024.
1. Bilkis Bano case
The Supreme Court on January 8, 2024, quashed the Gujarat government's decision to grant remission to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang rape case and the murder of seven of her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots and ordered that they be sent back to jail within two weeks.
Holding the petition challenging the remission as maintainable, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said the Gujarat government was not the appropriate government to pass the remission order and asked whether "heinous crimes against women permit remission" whatever faith she may follow or creed she may belong to.
Notably, all 11 convicts were granted remission by the Gujarat government and released on August 15, 2022.
Bilkis Bano was 21 years old and five months pregnant when she was raped while fleeing the horror of the communal riots that broke out after the Godhra train-burning incident. Her three-year-old daughter was among the seven family members killed in the riots.
2. Electoral bonds scheme
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court on February 15, 2024, struck down the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional in a unanimous verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the legal validity of the central government's scheme which allows for anonymous funding to political parties. The court said it violates the Constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression as well as the right to information.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud directed that the SBI must disclose details of each electoral bond encashed by political parties. The information should include the date of encashment and the denomination of the bonds and be submitted to the poll panel by March 6. The Election Commission should publish the information shared by SBI on its official website by March 13, the bench said.
The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, delivered two separate and unanimous verdicts on the pleas challenging the scheme.
3. 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment
The Supreme Court pronounced its verdict on March 4, 2024, said MPs and MLAs taking bribes to vote or make a speech in the House are not immune from prosecution. The bench said they disagreed with the judgment in PV Narasimha and the judgment in PV Narasimha which grants immunity to legislators for allegedly bribery for casting a vote or speech has “wide ramifications and overruled”.
Observing that corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the foundation of Indian parliamentary democracy, a seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud overruled the apex court's five-judge bench's 1998 verdict in the JMM bribery case -- involving five party leaders accepting bribes to vote against the no-confidence motion threatening the P V Narasimha Rao government in 1993.
"Bribery is not protected by parliamentary privileges," the bench, also comprising Justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, P S Narasimha, J B Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra, said.
4. Sub-classification in SC-ST quotas
In a landmark ruling on August 1, 2024, the Supreme Court gave its nod to the sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories, allowing for a more nuanced allocation of reservation benefits in jobs and education. This decision aims to address the disparities within these historically marginalised communities by ensuring that the most disadvantaged groups receive a fair share of the benefits.
The landmark verdict was passed by the bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud by a 6:1 majority, with Justice Bela Trivedi dissenting. Six separate judgments were written. The verdict overrules the 2004 judgment of a five-judge Constitution bench in the case of EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh.
The Supreme Court's 7-judge Constitution Bench has, by a majority decision, ruled that state governments can create sub-categories within SC and ST to allocate greater reservation benefits to certain categories. This bench overturned a 2004 judgment by a 5-judge bench in the EV Chinnaiah case, which had held that sub-categorization within SC/ST communities was not permissible.
5. Child pornography is offence under POCSO Act
In a significant ruling on September 23, the Supreme Court declared that the storage of child pornographic material constitutes an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The decision was delivered by a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, which overturned the judgment by the Madras High Court.
The Madras High Court had previously ruled that merely downloading or viewing child pornography, without the intent to distribute or transmit, did not amount to an offence. However, the Supreme Court firmly set aside this interpretation, affirming that the possession of such material alone is a criminal act under the POCSO Act, which aims to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse.
The bench also laid down certain guidelines on child pornography and its legal consequences. The apex court suggested the Parliament to amend the term 'child pornography' with the term 'child sexual exploitative and abusive material'. It also requested the Union to bring an Ordinance to implement the amendment. Further, the Supreme Court has directed the Courts to not use the term 'child pornography'.
Additionally, the Supreme Court directed that courts should endorse the term “child sexual exploitative and abuse material” (CSEAM) instead of the term “child pornography” in judicial order or judgment. The Court also observed that a singular incident of abuse turns into a ripple of trauma and the rights and dignity of a child are continuously violated each time such material is viewed and shared.
6. Constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on October 17 upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act related to the grant of Indian citizenship to illegal immigrants in Assam by a majority verdict of 4:1. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said the Assam Accord was a political solution to the problem of illegal migration.
Notably, Section 6A specifically addresses Bangladeshi immigrants who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, allowing them to register as Indian citizens. Immigrants who enter after this cut-off date are ineligible for citizenship.
Justices Surya Kant, M M Sundresh and Manoj Misra in their majority verdict held that Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the provision. Justice Pardiwala gave a dissenting judgment to hold Section 6A as unconstitutional.
7. UP Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004
The Supreme Court on November 5 declared the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 constitutional. The apex court pronounced the verdict while hearing the pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court order that had scrapped the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, calling it "unconstitutional" and violative of the constitutional principle of secularism.
The apex court said the UP Madarsa Act is only unconstitutional to the extent that it granted higher education degrees under fazil and kamil, which is in conflict with the UGC Act. The high court erred in holding that the law was violative of the principle of secularism, said a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. "We have upheld the validity of the UP madrassa law and moreover a statute can be struck down only if the State lacks the legislative competence," the CJI said while pronouncing the verdict.
On March 22, the Allahabad High Court declared the Act as "unconstitutional" and violative of the principle of secularism, and asked the state government to accommodate madrassa students in the formal schooling system.
8. Aligarh Muslim University minority status
The Supreme Court on November 8, in a landmark verdict, said AMU cannot be considered a minority institution since it was created by a central law and said the legal question over AMU's minority status would be adjudicated upon by a regular bench. A seven-judge Constitution Bench, has overturned the 1967 judgment in S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India, which stated that an institution established through legislative enactment could not claim minority status.
In a 4:3 majority verdict, a Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, said a legislation or an executive action that discriminated against religious or linguistic minorities in establishing or administering educational institutions, was ultra vires Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
Article 30 deals with the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. Article 30 (1) says all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
9. Bulldozer justice
In a landmark judgment delivered on November 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of India strongly condemned the practice of arbitrary demolitions, often referred to as "bulldozer action." The court emphasised that such actions violate the constitutional principles of due process and fairness, as well as the legal rights of individuals.
Observing that justice through bulldozers was unknown to any civilised system of jurisprudence, a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said that it will be "totally unconstitutional" if houses of people are demolished merely because they are accused or even convicts.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan introduced a set of nationwide guidelines aimed at regulating the demolition of illegal structures.
The court observed that if a property is demolished only because a person is an accused, it is "wholly unconstitutional". “The right to shelter is one of the facets of Article 21. Depriving such innocent people of their right to life by removing shelter from their heads, in our considered view, would be wholly unconstitutional,” a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan said.
“The executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person accused is guilty and, therefore, punish him by demolishing his residential/commercial property/properties. Such an act of the executive would be transgressing its limits,” the court said during hearing pleas challenging house demolitions by state governments in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. In these cases, Muslim tenants were accused of committing crimes that triggered communal tensions.
10. Caste-based discrimination in prisons
In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on October 13, banned caste-based discrimination like division of manual labour, segregation of barracks and bias against prisoners of de-notified tribes and habitual offenders by holding as "unconstitutional" the jail manual rules of 10 states for fostering such biases.
Observing that "right to live with dignity extends even to the incarcerated", a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said, "Criminal laws of the colonial era continue to impact the postcolonial world."
The court asked the Centre and the states to amend their prison manuals and laws within three months, and file compliance reports before it. "Rules that discriminate among individual prisoners on the basis of their caste specifically or indirectly by referring to proxies of caste identity are violative of Article 14 on account of invalid classification and subversion of substantive equality," it held.
