The year 2024 has been a defining one for India, with the Indian higher judiciary, the Supreme Court reinforcing core Constitutional principles, ensuring that the rights enshrined within it remain robust and inviolable. In an era when an aggressive executive impinges on individual and collective rights and liberties, the Supreme Court has, in several cases, played a pivotal role in upholding the foundational ideals of justice, equality, and fairness
These 2024 judgments emphasise the protection of fundamental rights, including the right to life, dignity, equality before the law, and freedom from arbitrary state actions. Whether it be in the context of protecting the right to shelter, ensuring judicial oversight in executive actions, or reaffirming the presumption of innocence in criminal justice, the judgments affirm India’s commitment to constitutional safeguards. These rulings have sent a clear message that any infringement on these rights—be it by the state or any other authority—will be met with judicial scrutiny and, where necessary, corrective action. These decisions are not just legal victories but are symbolic of the Court’s role in holding the mighty Indian state accountable, ensuring that the protection of individual rights is never compromised in the pursuit of public order or convenience. Apart from the pronouncements that ensured personal liberty of journalists and politicians from the opposition, a significant ruling on bulldozer justice included stringent directions that has, so far at least, acted as a strong deterrent.
- January
Supreme Court quashes remission for Bilkis Bano gang rape convicts- Upholding justice and rule of law
On January 8, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in the Bilkis Bano case, quashing the Gujarat government’s premature remission of 11 convicts who had been sentenced for heinous crimes, including the gang rape of Bilkis Bano and the murder of seven family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots. Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan unequivocally held the remission order to be unlawful, highlighting procedural lapses and asserting that it violated the principles of rule of law. The Court criticised the Gujarat government’s complicity in granting the remission, which it termed an “instance of usurpation of the Maharashtra government’s authority” given the case’s transfer to Mumbai for a fair trial. The judgment marked a firm stance against arbitrary executive action and reaffirmed the victim’s rights within India’s criminal justice system.
The Court observed that the Gujarat government, backed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, acted with “unclean hands,” misled the Court, and disregarded due process in granting remission. Justice Nagarathna underscored that liberty under Article 21 must be exercised only in accordance with law, asserting that allowing the convicts to remain free would undermine public trust and violate the rule of law. The judgment ordered the convicts to surrender to custody within two weeks, asserting that their deprivation of liberty was justified based on their convictions and criminal conduct.
This ruling stands out as a monumental affirmation of judicial integrity, accountability, and victim-centric justice. Bilkis Bano’s relentless 20-year struggle, supported by human rights activists, faced numerous challenges, making this judgment a beacon of hope. By quashing the remission, the Supreme Court ensured that arbitrary decisions by the executive do not erode the foundations of justice, emphasising the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional values and preserving public confidence in the rule of law.
- February
Supreme Court strikes down electoral bonds scheme- Upholding transparency in political funding
In a pivotal ruling on February 15, the Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, 2017, declaring it unconstitutional. A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, held that the scheme violated the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The judgment underscored that anonymous donation through electoral bonds infringed upon the public’s right to access information vital for participatory democracy, emphasising that transparency in political funding is indispensable for free and fair elections.
The bench addressed two key issues: the impact of anonymous donations on the right to information and whether unlimited corporate funding to political parties compromised electoral integrity. Striking down the scheme and related amendments to the Income Tax Act, Representation of People Act, and Companies Act, the Court held that such measures unjustly treated corporate and individual donor’s alike, enabling companies to exercise disproportionate influence over politics. Chief Justice Chandrachud further observed that the scheme failed the “least restrictive means” test, as less opaque methods could effectively address concerns about black money without undermining transparency.
The Court directed the State Bank of India to cease issuing electoral bonds and ordered disclosure of all donation details to the Election Commission of India, mandating publication by March 13. However, in a subsequent decision, another bench led by CJI Chandrachud refrained from initiating a criminal inquiry into allegations of quid pro quo arrangements tied to electoral bonds, stating the matter required further substantiation.
This judgment marked a watershed moment for electoral reform, reinforcing the democratic imperative for transparency in political funding. By dismantling a scheme that obscured the flow of money into politics, the Court affirmed its commitment to free and fair elections, even while leaving some accountability questions unresolved.
- March
Supreme Court reverses 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment- A milestone against legislative corruption
On March 4, the Supreme Court overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment, which had controversially upheld immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for legislators receiving bribes linked to their vote or speech in the legislature. The seven-judge bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud rejected this interpretation, holding that parliamentary privileges cannot shield corruption. The Court clarified that immunity applies only to actions essential for legislative functions, not criminal acts like bribery, which undermine democratic values and probity in public life.
The judgment dismantled the earlier precedent that had paradoxically protected legislators who accepted bribes and voted accordingly but allowed prosecution of those who acted independently after accepting illicit gratification. Highlighting that corruption erodes the foundation of democracy, the Court emphasised that bribery is a punishable offence the moment illegal gratification is accepted, regardless of subsequent legislative actions.
This ruling is a landmark for its robust stand against corruption in public office. It upholds the principle that legislative privileges exist to foster free debate, not to shield malfeasance. By reaffirming accountability and rejecting immunity for bribery, the judgment reinforces public trust in democratic institutions and strengthens the fight against corruption in governance.
Supreme Court affirms freedom of speech, quashes criminal case against professor
On March 7, the Supreme Court upheld the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression while quashing a criminal case against Professor Javed Ahmed Hajam, who faced charges under Section 153A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code for his WhatsApp status criticising the abrogation of Article 370. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that dissent and criticism of state decisions, such as describing the abrogation as a “Black Day for Jammu and Kashmir,” are integral to democracy and protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court asserted that such expressions, while critical, do not amount to promoting communal disharmony under Section 153A.
The ruling also criticised the Bombay High Court’s earlier refusal to quash the FIR against the professor, emphasising that dissent cannot be suppressed based on the reaction of individuals with “weak minds.” The Court noted, “If every criticism or protest of the actions of the State is to be held as an offence, democracy will not survive.” It further stressed the need to educate law enforcement on the nuances of free speech and reasonable restrictions, urging the sensitisation of police machinery to democratic values.
Significantly, the Court also addressed a second message shared by the professor, which celebrated Pakistan’s Independence Day. The bench clarified that extending goodwill to another country does not inherently promote disharmony and cautioned against imputing motives to individuals based solely on their religion. This ruling reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democratic principles, ensuring that freedom of speech remains robust and not stifled by overreach or misinterpretation of the law. By setting a precedent for protecting individual expression, this judgment reinforces the essence of dissent as a cornerstone of a thriving democracy.
- May
Supreme Court declares arrest and remand of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha illegal
On May 15, the Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, declared the arrest and remand of Prabir Purkayastha, the founder of NewsClick, to be illegal. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta quashed the remand order issued on October 4, 2023, by the Delhi police, highlighting that the copy of the remand application had not been provided to the accused or his counsel prior to the remand order being passed. This failure to comply with the legal requirement rendered the arrest and subsequent remand invalid. The Court referenced its earlier judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, emphasising the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards in arrests.
Following the ruling, the Court ordered Purkayastha’s release from custody, contingent on his meeting the bail conditions set by the trial court, as the chargesheet had already been filed. While ASG Raju sought clarification regarding the authorities’ powers of arrest, Justice Gavai confirmed that the Court’s order did not restrict legal actions within the bounds of the law. Purkayastha had been incarcerated since October 2023, and this judgment provided a crucial safeguard for individuals detained under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) without proper procedural protections.
This decision was pivotal in reaffirming the importance of due process and individual rights in cases of preventive detention. By setting aside the remand order and ordering Purkayastha’s release, the Supreme Court reinforced the need for accountability and transparency in the legal process, safeguarding the constitutional right to a fair trial and protection against unlawful detention.
- July
Posthumous vindication: Supreme Court restores Rahim Ali’s Indian citizenship
On July 11, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment in the case of Rahim Ali, who had spent over a decade battling accusations of being a foreigner. Despite having passed away over two years earlier, Rahim Ali’s posthumous victory highlighted the deep struggles of many residents in Assam, caught in the ongoing citizenship crisis. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah quashed the Foreigners Tribunal’s decision that had declared him a foreigner, ruling that authorities cannot arbitrarily accuse individuals without material evidence to substantiate such claims. This judgment came after years of legal battles, where Ali’s name appeared in several voter lists, contradicting the accusations of illegal migration.
The case against Rahim Ali, initiated in 2004, was rooted in allegations of illegal migration from Bangladesh after the 1971 cut-off date. Despite presenting evidence of his family’s presence in Assam before the cut-off, Ali was declared a foreigner in 2012. He challenged the decision in the High Court and then in the Supreme Court, which ultimately recognised the absence of sufficient evidence for the accusations. The ruling not only vindicated his citizenship but also emphasised the need for credible and fair investigations into such serious allegations.
Rahim Ali’s case is a tragic example of how systemic issues in Assam’s citizenship process, including unfair legal procedures and arbitrary decisions, can devastate families. The Supreme Court’s judgment, although delivered too late for Ali himself, sets a precedent for future cases, ensuring that the rights of citizens are not disregarded without solid legal grounding. It underscores the importance of due process and the protection of fundamental rights, particularly in regions struggling with identity and nationality issues.
Supreme Court strikes down invasive bail condition, upholds right to privacy
In a significant decision, the Supreme Court ruled that bail conditions cannot infringe upon an accused’s right to privacy or subject them to continuous surveillance. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, examined the legality of a bail condition that required the accused to drop a pin on Google Maps for the police to access their location. The court held that such a condition, which would allow the police to constantly track the accused’s movements, violates the right to privacy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment emphasised that the primary purpose of bail is to ensure that the accused can remain free while awaiting trial, and that conditions should not impose undue restrictions on their liberty. The Court observed that conditions like constant surveillance would amount to a form of confinement, effectively undermining the very essence of granting bail. It also pointed out that the accused’s right to privacy cannot be compromised by arbitrary conditions set by the investigating agency.
In the specific case before the Court, involving Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national accused in a drug-related case, the bail condition requiring the accused to drop a location pin was found to be unnecessary. Inputs from Google LLC clarified that such a pin does not enable real-time tracking of the user, thus rendering the condition redundant. The Court ruled that imposing such a condition without technical consideration was unwarranted and directed its removal.
This ruling reinforces the balance between ensuring effective investigation and respecting individual rights, particularly the right to privacy.
- August
Judgment on sub-classification of scheduled castes- A progressive step amidst criticism
On August 1, 2024, a landmark judgment by a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India marked a pivotal moment in the evolution of reservations within Scheduled Castes (SC). The Court, by a majority of 6:1, ruled that sub-classification within the SC category is permissible, allowing for more nuanced quotas for historically underrepresented sub-groups. The seven-judge bench was led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprised Justices B R Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma. Notably, a dissenting minority judgment was delivered by Justice Bela Trivedi. The judgment overturned the 2005 decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P., which had held that SCs form a homogenous group and thus could not be subdivided. The Court’s ruling is poised to benefit certain marginalised sections of the SCs that remain disadvantaged despite the existing reservation framework.
However, the judgment also came with its share of controversy. While the majority opinion laid down that sub-classification could be done with empirical evidence to show the underrepresentation of certain groups, the decision included an unsolicited discussion on the “creamy layer” concept within SCs. This part of the judgment was met with strong criticism as it appeared to misapply the creamy layer criterion, which traditionally excludes more economically advanced individuals from availing of affirmative action benefits, to the SC category. Many argue that such an application overlooks the unique social and historical context of SCs, where even economically empowered members still face significant social stigma and discrimination.
This judgment was significant as it opened the door for further fine-tuning reservation policies to ensure that the most marginalised within the SCs are not overlooked. The ruling, however, also raised critical concerns regarding the potential for confusion and uneven implementation, especially with regard to the introduction of the creamy layer. While sub-classification can bring more targeted benefits, the introduction of the creamy layer without addressing its constitutional implications could undermine the very purpose of affirmative action. Despite these concerns, the decision was a progressive step towards improving the representation of underrepresented groups within India’s reservation system.
Supreme Court firm stand on not creating exceptions based on personal views under POCSO Case, protecting minors and upholding Child Protection Laws
On August 20, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in response to the Calcutta High Court’s controversial judgment in a POCSO case. The case involved a 14-year-old girl who was enticed by the accused to leave her home and eventually became pregnant. Despite the seriousness of the offences under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the High Court had quashed the conviction of the accused, claiming that the law was unduly harsh on consensual relationships between adolescents. The High Court’s ruling suggested that the POCSO Act, in its current form, unjustly deprived young people in consensual relationships of their liberty and viewed them solely as victims. This controversial stance was challenged by the Supreme Court, which took suo-moto action to quash the High Court’s decision.
The division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in a strong rebuke of the High Court’s reasoning, emphasised that the nature of the offence involving a 14-year-old victim could never be termed “non-exploitative,” as suggested by the Calcutta HC. The Court disagreed with the High Court’s creation of categories like “older adolescents” and the characterisation of the act as a “romantic relationship.” The bench highlighted that the law unequivocally defines any sexual act with a minor under 18, regardless of consent, as an offence. The Supreme Court underscored that the role of the judiciary is to implement the law as it stands and not create exceptions based on personal views. The Court’s verdict reasserted the importance of protecting minors from sexual exploitation, reinforcing the integrity of the POCSO Act and its role in safeguarding children’s rights.
This judgment was crucial as it reaffirmed the need for strict adherence to child protection laws, ensuring that even consensual relationships involving minors do not undermine the law’s protective mechanisms. The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively closed the door on attempts to dilute the scope of the POCSO Act under the guise of protecting adolescent rights, sending a clear message on the importance of child safety and legal accountability.
Bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Excise policy case: A landmark decision on speedy trial and personal liberty
On August 9, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, in the Delhi Excise Policy case. Sisodia had been in custody for 17 months following his arrest by the CBI and ED in February 2023. The apex court found that his right to a speedy trial had been violated, as the trial had not yet commenced despite significant delays. The bench, comprising Justices B R Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, emphasised that Sisodia should not remain in custody indefinitely while awaiting a trial that was unlikely to start soon, considering the vast number of witnesses and documents to be examined. The Court noted that the prolonged incarceration amounted to a violation of his personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court criticised the prosecution’s arguments that Sisodia had delayed the trial, pointing out that the trial was still far from starting, and that the sheer volume of documents—around 69,000 pages—required reasonable time for the defence to inspect. Additionally, the Court rejected the imposition of bail restrictions, such as preventing Sisodia from visiting the Delhi Secretariat, as unnecessary. Instead, it imposed standard conditions, including a bail bond of ₹10 lakh, surrender of his passport, and periodic reporting to the Investigating Officer.
The judgment reiterated the fundamental principle that bail is the rule, not the exception, and that pretrial detention should not be used as a punitive measure. Citing previous cases like Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh (2024) and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024), the Court underscored that delay in trial, coupled with prolonged detention, should not be ignored. The judgment is a significant reminder of the need for timely justice and reinforces the importance of safeguarding personal liberty, even in cases involving serious charges.
- September
Supreme Court grants bail to Senthil Balaji in money laundering case: A focus on delay in trial and bail provisions
On September 26, 2024, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji in a money laundering case related to the cash-for-jobs scam that took place during his tenure as the state’s Transport Minister from 2011 to 2016. Balaji had been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in June 2023 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and his bail application had been rejected by the Madras High Court. Challenging the denial, Balaji moved the Supreme Court, where the bench, comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, reserved its judgment on August 12, 2024.
In delivering the verdict, Justice Oka emphasised that stringent bail conditions and delays in the trial process are incompatible. He remarked that “stringent and higher threshold of bail and delay in prosecution cannot go together,” thereby expanding the scope of judicial precedents, such as the Najeeb case, and ultimately granting bail to Balaji, albeit with onerous conditions. The Court considered the unlikelihood of a swift trial and the prolonged period of incarceration as significant factors in its decision.
Despite acknowledging that a prima facie case exists against Balaji, the Court took into account the long delay in the trial and the necessity of an expeditious judicial process. Balaji’s case reflects the Court’s growing emphasis on the importance of timely trials, especially when accused individuals face prolonged pretrial detention. The Court’s ruling also highlighted the need for balancing stringent legal provisions, such as those under the PMLA, with the fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. This decision marks a significant step in reinforcing the principle that delays in the trial process must be factored into decisions regarding bail, even in cases involving serious allegations.
Supreme Court restores criminal prosecution in POCSO Case, clarifies on storage of child pornography
On September 23, 2024, the Supreme Court set aside a judgment by the Madras High Court that had quashed criminal proceedings against an individual accused of possessing child pornography under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The High Court had previously held that merely storing such material without an intention to transmit it did not constitute an offence. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, observing that the failure to delete, destroy, or report the material could indicate an intention to transmit it, and thus, the criminal proceedings should continue.
The bench, comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala, found that the High Court had committed an “egregious error” in quashing the case. The Court emphasised that the statutory presumption of a culpable mental state could be prima facie established based on the accused’s actions, such as not deleting or reporting the child pornographic material. This, the Court stated, could be seen as an indication of the accused’s intent to transmit the material.
The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that possession or storage of child pornography, coupled with an intention to transmit, is criminalised under POCSO, even if the material is deleted before an FIR is filed. The judgment also underscores the importance of prosecuting offenders who engage in such harmful acts, even in cases where the material is no longer available by the time of investigation
- October
Supreme Court strikes down caste-based segregation in prisons
On October 3, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment addressing the issue of caste-based segregation and division of labour in prisons. The bench comprising CJI Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra struck down provisions in the prison manuals of several states that assigned tasks based on the caste of prisoners. Specifically, the Court found it discriminatory to assign cleaning and sweeping tasks to marginalised castes while reserving cooking duties for higher-caste prisoners, as this perpetuated caste discrimination and violated Article 15 of the Constitution. The Court noted that such assignments reinforced harmful stereotypes and societal hierarchies, which undermined the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution.
The Court emphasised that such caste-based divisions not only stigmatise marginalised communities but also serve to maintain a social hierarchy that is incompatible with the values of equality and justice. By allowing these caste-based divisions, the prison system effectively reinforced untouchability, violating Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud stated that segregation on the basis of caste would only deepen caste animosity, which is antithetical to the rehabilitative purpose of prisons.
This judgment is a landmark in the fight against caste-based discrimination, reinforcing the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding the rights and dignity of marginalised communities. By striking down these provisions, the Court has ensured that prison systems no longer perpetuate caste divisions, promoting equality and rehabilitation over segregation and discrimination.
Supreme Court upholds constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act
On October 17, 2024, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which grants citizenship to foreign migrants of Indian origin who arrived in Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971. The decision was rendered in a 4:1 majority, with Justice Pardiwala dissenting. The majority comprised the opinion of CJI Chandrachud and Justices Surya Kant, Manoj Misra and MM Sundresh. Justice Pardiwala gave a dissenting judgment to hold Section 6A as unconstitutional. Section 6A was introduced as part of the Assam Accord of 1985 to address illegal migration concerns in Assam, particularly from Bangladesh. While petitioners argued that it legalised illegal immigration and violated Assam’s cultural identity, the Court affirmed the provision’s constitutionality, emphasising Parliament’s legislative competence in addressing the issue.
The Court reasoned that Assam’s unique demographic challenges, including a higher proportion of immigrants compared to other states, justified the special provisions under Section 6A. The majority opinion noted that the cut-off date of March 25, 1971, was linked to the conclusion of the Bangladesh Liberation War, making it a reasonable policy decision. Justice Surya Kant, in his concurring judgment, also upheld the provision, dismissing the claim that it violated the principle of fraternity or the rights of indigenous communities. However, the Court highlighted the inadequate enforcement of the law, particularly regarding the identification of illegal immigrant’s post-1971. It called for stronger implementation of the relevant immigration laws and monitoring of Foreigners Tribunals. This judgment underscores the complexity of balancing national immigration policies with regional concerns, while also emphasising the need for effective enforcement to prevent injustice.
- November
Supreme Court upholds Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Education Act, strikes down provisions on higher education degrees
On November 5, 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s earlier judgment that had struck it down. The High Court had ruled that the Act violated the basic structure principle of secularism, but the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that a statute can only be struck down for violating fundamental rights or provisions of legislative competence, not for violating the basic structure doctrine. The Court clarified that a challenge based on secularism must show that the statute specifically infringes constitutional provisions on secularism, which was not the case here.
However, the Court found that the Act’s provisions regulating higher education degrees, such as ‘fazil’ and ‘kamil,’ were in conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act and thus unconstitutional. A bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra emphasised that the Madrasa Act serves a positive role in ensuring educational standards in Madarsas, promoting students’ ability to contribute to society, and preserving the minority character of religious institutions.
The Court affirmed that the Act falls within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 25 of List 3, which deals with education, while highlighting that the Act’s regulation of higher education degrees fell outside this jurisdiction. The Court also emphasised that the provisions of the Madarsa Act are consistent with the Right to Education and Article 21A, ensuring that students in recognised Madarsas receive an education that enables them to pursue further studies and employment opportunities.
Supreme Court lays down parameters to identify a minority educational institution, directs a smaller regular bench to determine the minority status of AMU
The Supreme Court’s decision in Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) vs Naresh Agarwal addressed the contentious issue of whether AMU qualifies as a minority educational institution under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution. In a 4:3 majority, the seven-judge bench overturned the court’s 1967 decision in Azeez Basha vs Union of India, which had denied AMU this status on the grounds that it was established by a parliamentary statute rather than the Muslim community. The judgment decouples minority status from statutory incorporation, the institution’s date of establishment, and its administrative composition, thereby laying down nuanced principles for interpreting Article 30.
The majority opinion, led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and joined by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasised that statutory incorporation does not negate minority status if the institution’s genesis, purpose, and administrative framework reflect its minority character. It clarified that Article 30’s protections extend to institutions founded before the Constitution’s enactment and asserted that an institution’s administration does not need to comprise exclusively minority members to retain its character. This progressive approach acknowledges the evolving nature of educational institutions, their commitment to secular values, and their potential for inclusivity.
In contrast, the dissenting judges raised concerns about the procedural handling of the case and the substantive criteria for minority status. Justice Surya Kant highlighted procedural irregularities and advocated a stricter conjunctive interpretation of “establishment” and “administration.” Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma expressed reservations about extending minority protections to AMU, noting its historical context and limited Muslim oversight during its establishment.
This verdict is significant for its broader interpretation of minority rights in education, ensuring that statutory formalities or historical peculiarities do not undermine the protections guaranteed by Article 30. By prioritising the spirit of minority empowerment and inclusivity, the judgment reinforces India’s constitutional commitment to safeguarding diversity and fostering equitable educational opportunities. It sets a precedent for recognising and addressing the unique challenges faced by minority institutions in a modern, pluralistic society.
Supreme Court ruling on “bulldozer justice”, reaffirming fundamental rights and the rule of law
On November 13, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment addressing the controversial practice of demolitions by state authorities as punitive measures, often referred to as “bulldozer justice“. The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, scrutinised the legality and constitutionality of such actions, emphasising that property demolition as a punitive tool undermines fundamental rights and bypasses judicial processes. The Court’s ruling was grounded in several key principles, including the rule of law, separation of powers, and the right to shelter.
The Court upheld the foundational principle that all actions of the state must align with the rule of law, which requires adherence to established legal procedures. It condemned demolitions carried out without judicial oversight, stating that the executive cannot act as both the accuser and judge. The judgment reinforced that the presumption of innocence, a core tenet of criminal justice, prohibits punitive measures like property demolition without due process. It also highlighted that such actions violate the right to shelter, integral to human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. Demolitions, particularly those targeting families based on the accused status of a single member, were deemed unconstitutional as they inflict collective punishment on innocent parties.
The Court also emphasised the need for public accountability, asserting that officials responsible for arbitrary demolitions must be held accountable for their actions. The judgment firmly established that the executive cannot bypass judicial processes to inflict punishment, and any abuse of power must be dealt with through legal mechanisms. The ruling underscores India’s commitment to the constitutional principles of fairness, justice, and the protection of individual rights, reinforcing that executive actions must always conform to the due process of law.
Safeguarding rights, strengthening democracy: The Supreme Court’s role in 2024
As can be seen from the analysis above, the year 2024 has also seen the Court address several complex and contemporary issues with far-reaching implications for Indian society. For instance, in matters related to religious freedoms and the regulation of educational institutions, the Court has worked to strike a balance between religious autonomy and the state’s obligation to ensure quality, inclusive education for all citizens. Similarly, the issue of “bulldozer justice,” where state authorities have resorted to punitive demolitions of properties as a substitute for due judicial process, was critically examined, reaffirming the importance of due process and accountability in governance.
The significance of these judgments lies not just in the legal precedent they set, but in their broader societal impact. As India continues to evolve in a rapidly changing world, these landmark rulings reaffirm the Court’s responsibility to ensure that the rule of law prevails above all else. They underscore the importance of judicial oversight in curbing executive overreach and protecting the rights of individuals, particularly the most vulnerable in society. As we look ahead, these decisions will undoubtedly continue to resonate, influencing future jurisprudence and contributing to the ongoing pursuit of justice in India.
In conclusion, 2024 has been a significant year for the Supreme Court of India, with some rulings at least, showcasing the institution’s commitment to upholding the Constitution and safeguarding the rights of individuals. The judgments delivered across various domains — from securing the rights of minorities in educational institutions to protecting citizens from arbitrary executive actions — reflect the Court’s role as the protector of democracy. These rulings are not merely legal decisions; they are vital affirmations of the fundamental principles that bind the nation together, ensuring that justice, fairness, and equality remain central to India’s legal landscape.
Related: