Supreme Court in 2024: A year of landmark verdicts and key developments

The year 2024 was an important one for the Supreme Court of India, marked by transformative judgments that reshaped constitutional and legal landscapes, reaffirmed the commitment to individual liberties, and underscored the principles of equality. It was also a year of significant transitions and critical interventions in sensitive sociopolitical issues.

A string of Constitution bench verdicts dominated the year, addressing a wide spectrum of issues, including political funding, parliamentary privileges, property rights, and affirmative action. These rulings highlighted the apex court’s evolving jurisprudence on personal liberty and its critical review of stringent laws.

The year also witnessed a leadership transition,with justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud retiring in November and his successor justice Sanjiv Khanna, inheriting a docket loaded with matters of critical constitutional importance and cases of religious sensitivity that have captured national attention.

In February, a five-judge bench struck down the Centre’s 2018 electoral bonds scheme, deeming it unconstitutional for violating voters’ right to information. By mandating full disclosure of donors and recipients for bonds issued since April 2019, the court underscored the principle of electoral transparency, despite the scheme’s stated intent of curbing black money in politics.

The court followed this with another landmark judgment in March when a seven-judge bench reversed its 1998 ruling that shielded lawmakers from prosecution for accepting bribes in exchange for votes or speeches in the legislature. The court ruled that such acts, undermining public trust and democratic integrity, could not be protected under the doctrine of parliamentary privilege.

July witnessed a pivotal decision by a nine-judge bench, which placed limitations on the State’s power to acquire privately owned property for redistribution as public resources. The court limited the State’s power to acquire privately owned property for redistribution as public resources, ensuring only those meeting specific criteria for public benefit qualified. Later in the month, the court expanded fiscal autonomy of states in the mineral sector. On July 29, another nine-judge bench ruled by an 8-1 majority that states could impose taxes on mineral-bearing lands and mineral extraction in addition to royalties levied by the Centre. This judgment strengthened the financial independence of states, marking a shift toward decentralized economic governance. The same month, the court revisited its progressive stance on secular law by ruling that divorced Muslim women can claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judgment built on the principles of the 1985 Shah Bano ruling, reaffirming the secular framework for personal law in matters of maintenance.

In a landmark judgment in August, a seven-judge bench upheld the authority of states to create subclassifications within Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for reservations. The court reasoned that this would ensure that benefits of affirmative action reach the most marginalised within these groups. The decision has far-reaching implications for reservation policies and social equity.

October also saw significant judicial activity. On October 3, the Supreme Court declared caste-based discrimination in prisons unconstitutional. It directed states to overhaul their prison manuals and end discriminatory practices, reaffirming the fundamental rights of dignity and equality for all inmates. On October 10, a Constitution bench upheld the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which granted citizenship rights to Bangladeshi-origin migrants in Assam who entered before March 25, 1971. The court also bolstered state control over industrial alcohol on October 18, affirming the regulatory powers of states in this sector while emphasising their role in protecting public health.

The month of November was also marked by several key rulings. On November 2, a five-judge bench underscored the importance of fairness in recruitment processes, holding that selection criteria cannot be changed once the recruitment process begins unless explicitly permitted by rules. The court also overturned an Allahabad high court decision invalidating the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, reiterating the importance of state oversight in ensuring educational standards in madrasas. On November 8, CJI Chandrachud, on his last working day, delivered a 4-3 majority decision overturning the 1967 Azeez Basha judgment, which had denied minority status to Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The court provided a detailed framework for determining minority status under Article 30(1) and directed a fresh assessment of AMU’s status.

Throughout the year, the court emphasised personal liberty, reiterating that “bail is the rule, jail the exception,” especially under stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). High-profile cases, such as the Delhi excise policy investigation involving Aam Aadmi Party leaders, saw the judiciary scrutinise arrests and grant bail to prevent undue detention.

The court’s critical stance extended to issues of arbitrary demolitions, which it condemned as “bulldozer justice” in a November verdict that laid down nationwide guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions by state authorities. It stressed that such actions, carried out without due process, violated constitutional guarantees of fairness and equality.

Other significant rulings touched on the rights of marginalised communities and reforms in critical areas. The court stressed the creation of enabling environments for persons with disabilities in education and employment, reinforcing the state’s positive obligations under constitutional guarantees.

The year concluded with a crucial intervention on December 12, when a special bench led by CJI Khanna issued a nationwide directive restraining courts from entertaining fresh suits or passing orders to survey mosques for determining whether temple structures lay beneath them. This interim order, tied to the ongoing adjudication of challenges to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, marked a significant judicial response to escalating litigation initiated by Hindu groups over historical temple sites.

Despite its achievements, some critical matters saw little progress. Challenges to the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, which upheld several controversial provisions, including those pertained to arrest, search, seizure, bail and other related procedures of PMLA, remained unresolved. Similarly, while the court addressed disputes over religious sites, clarity on the Places of Worship Act’s applicability remains pending, leaving key constitutional questions unanswered.

Justice Khanna, with a tenure of only six months ending in May, inherits the formidable task of navigating the judiciary through these critical issues. Justice Bhushan R Gavai is set succeed him for yet another short term until November 2025. Justice Gavai will be succeeded by justice Surya Kant, who would serve as the CJI for over 14 months. The year 2025 will see three CJIs, even as the Supreme Court is poised to adjudicate upon key issues ranging from the protection of rights to numerous other significant matters of constitutional and legal importance.