NEW DELHI — From
striking down the electoral bonds scheme to ruling on quotas within quotas and
criminal prosecution of lawmakers, here are the landmark verdicts delivered by
the Supreme Court in 2024.
Electoral bonds
In February 2024, a five-judge Constitution Bench struck
down the electoral bonds scheme, holding that denying voters the right to know
the details of funding of political parties would lead to a dichotomous
situation and the funding of parties cannot be treated differently from that of
the candidates who contest elections.
In a unanimous verdict, the Constitution Bench, headed by
CJI D.Y. Chandrachud (now retired) and comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Sanjiv
Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, had directed the State Bank of India
(SBI) to forthwith stop the issuance of electoral bonds and ordered the
Election Commission to publish, on its official website, the details of the
political parties which have received contributions through electoral bonds
since April 2019.
Subsequently, a 3-judge Bench declined to entertain a PIL
seeking a SIT probe under the supervision of a retired apex court judge into an
alleged scam in poll financing using electoral bonds.
UP Madarsa Act
A bench, headed by then CJI Chandrachud, set aside the
Allahabad High Court ruling which had struck down the Uttar Pradesh Board of
Madarsa Education Act, 2004, which had held that the impugned law was bound to
be struck down for violation of the basic structure and principles of
secularism.
The Bench, also comprising Justices Pardiwala and Misra,
held the Madarsa Education Act "unconstitutional" to the extent it
regulates higher education in conflict with the UGC Act, and held that Article
21-A of the Constitution and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education (RTE) Act, 2009 have to be read consistently with the right of
religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice.
MPs/MLAs prosecution for bribery
In its unanimous verdict, a 7-judge Constitution Bench,
headed by CJI Chandrachud, overruled a 1998 judgment granting immunity to
lawmakers from criminal prosecution for accepting bribes to make a speech or
vote in the Parliament or state legislatures.
The Supreme Court held that MPs/MLAs cannot claim immunity
from prosecution in a criminal court for engaging in bribery for casting a vote
or speaking in a particular manner.
In its 1998 judgment in the P.V. Narasimha Rao versus CBI
case, the apex court had laid down that the parliamentarians, against the
backdrop of Article 105 of the Constitution, enjoy immunity against criminal
prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament.
Similar immunity is conferred by Article 194(2) on Members of the State
Legislatures.
‘Quota within quota’ permissible
In August this year, a 7-judge Constitution Bench held that
sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs)
would be permissible for providing benefits of affirmative action.
It suggested the application of the "creamy layer"
principle for availing quota benefits, but with a caveat that while providing
for sub-classification, the government would not be entitled to reserve 100 per
cent of seats available for SCs/STs for a particular sub-class to the exclusion
of other castes in the List.
In a 6:1 decision, it overturned its 2004 judgment, which
had ruled against giving preferential treatment to certain sub-castes within
SCs "as the members of the reserved category groups form a homogeneous
class incapable of further regrouping or classification".
Caste-based division of labour in prisons
The Supreme Court held it unconstitutional the practice of
employing “lower caste” jail inmates in cleaning and manual scavenging work in
prisons. The Bench, headed by then CJI Chandrachud (now retired) and comprising
Justices Pardiwala and Misra, directed that the “caste” column and any
references to caste in prisoners’ registers inside the prisons be deleted in
the prison manuals and related laws.
Section 6A of Citizenship Act upheld
A five-judge Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional
validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which was inserted to give
effect to the Assam Accord and formed the basis of the National Register of
Citizens (NRC) in Assam in 2019.
Interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution
A seven-judge Constitution Bench ruled that not every
resource owned by an individual can be considered a "material resource of
the community", merely because it meets the qualifier of "material
needs".
The bench, headed by CJI DY Chandrachud (now retired) and
comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia,
Pardiwala, Misra, Rajesh Bindal, S.C. Sharma, and A.G. Masih, was dealing with
questions as to whether the term "material resources of the
community" in Article 39 (b) include privately owned property and whether
laws intended to achieve this provision's objective of redistributing material
resources for the "common good" be exempted from legal challenges
based on violations of fundamental rights.
While Justice Nagarathna authored a separate but partially
concurring opinion, Justice Dhulia penned down a dissenting judgment.
Adani-Hindenburg controversy
The Supreme Court refused to form any SIT or group of
experts to conduct the investigation in the Adani-Hindenburg controversy and
said the facts of the case did not warrant a transfer of investigation from the
SEBI, holding that reports prepared by third-party organisations such as the
Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and Hindenburg
Research cannot be regarded as "conclusive proof".
LMV licence holders need no separate endorsement to drive
light transport vehicles
A five-judge Constitution Bench reiterated that Light Motor
Vehicle (LMV) licence holders do not require any separate endorsement to drive
a transport vehicle of the LMV class if the gross vehicle weight is under 7,500
kg.
Effective implementation of Prohibition of Child Marriage
Act, 2006
Saying that child marriage deprives children of their
agency, autonomy and right to fully develop and enjoy their childhood, the
Supreme Court issued a slew of directions for the effective implementation of
the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, including ordering the state
governments and Union Territories to appoint officers solely responsible for
discharging the functions of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs) at the
district level.
Recruitment rules cannot be amended midway
A Constitution Bench reiterated that recruitment rules
cannot be amended after the selection process has commenced, unless provided
otherwise in the extant rules or the recruitment advertisement, and if a change
in eligibility criteria is permitted under rules or advertisement, it will have
to satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness.
Appointment of arbitrators in public-private contract
A 5-judge Constitution Bench ruled that the unilateral
appointment of arbitrators by a government entity in a public-private contract
violates Article 14 of the Constitution, as since the activities of the
government have a public element, it is incumbent upon the government to ensure
that it enters into a contract with the public without adopting any unfair or
unreasonable procedure.
