TOP 50 SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS OF 2024
Criteria for the determination of a minority educational institution
[AMU Verdict] Minority Status of educational institutions not affected by statute, date of establishment, or non-minority administration: Supreme Court holds in 4:3 verdict
In an appeal against Allahabad High Court’s Order in Naresh Agarwal (Dr.) v. Union of India, 2005 SCC OnLine All 1705, whereby, Aligarh Muslim University’s (‘AMU’) action of 50 percent seat reservation in postgraduate medical courses for Muslim candidates by claiming it to be a minority institution, was struck down and held that AMU cannot have an exclusive reservation because it is not a minority institution, the Seven-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJ., Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. in 4: 3 overruled the Five-Judge Bench verdict in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 321, which held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution, hence AMU as created by an Act of Parliament, is not a minority institution so as to be covered under Article of the .
[Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal, ]
We dissent! Here’s why 3 out of 7 Supreme Court Judges ruled against AMU’s minority status
In the Aligarh Muslim University Minority Status case, the Seven-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJ., Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. in 4: 3 overruled the Five-Judge Bench verdict in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 321, which held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution. The Chief Justice authored the majority opinion in the case, joined by Justices Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra. In contrast, Justices Surya Kant*, Dipankar Datta*, and Satish Chandra Sharma* each wrote separate dissenting opinions, outlining their differing perspectives on the matter.
[Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal, ]
Did You Know? In 2024, a total of 60,947 cases were instituted, while 59,130 cases were disposed of, according to the National Judicial Data Grid.
Validity of unilateral appointment of arbitrators in public-private contract
Unilateral appointment clauses in public-private contracts violative of Article of ; Arbitrator’s selection from PSUs panel not a mandate: SC
While hearing two references made to the larger Bench, wherein the correctness of the Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), (2020) 14 SCC 712 (‘ECI-SPIC’) was called in question and the issue of unilateral appointment of arbitrators, and that whether a person who is ineligible to be appointed as arbitrator, can nominate an arbitrator, was to be dealt with, the five-Judge Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI and Hrishikesh Roy, JB Pardiwala, PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ., held that unilateral appointment clauses in public-private contracts are violative of Article of the .
[Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML, ]
Challenge to the change in the ‘rules of game’ in recruitment process
Eligibility criteria for Government jobs cannot be changed midway unless allowed by existing Rules: Supreme Court
In a matter posing a legal question of whether the criteria for appointment to a public post could be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has started, the 5-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud , CJI., Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra*, JJ. held the following: Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for the applications and ends with filling up of vacancies.
[Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, ]
LMV Licence Holder case
[Motor Vehicle Act] LMV License holder not required to obtain separate authorisation for driving transport vehicles under 7500 Kg: Supreme Court
In a matter concerning the issue that whether a person holding a driving license in respect of a ‘light motor vehicle’ (LMV), could on the strength of that license, be entitled to drive a ‘transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class’ having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kg, the 5-Judge Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy*, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra, JJ. held that a person holding a driving license for a LMV can, without any specific endorsement, drive a transport vehicle having an unladen weight of less than 7500 kg.
[Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, ]
Did You Know? As per the National Judicial Data Grid, the total number of pending cases in 2024 includes 1,153 cases before three-judge bench, 262 cases before five-judge bench, 35 cases before seven-judge bench, and 69 cases before nine-judge bench.
State’s Power to Regulate Industrial Alcohol
Read Supreme Court’s Majority Opinion on States’ power to regulate industry of ‘Intoxicating Liquor’
While considering the instant appeal which raised issues pertaining to the scope of the power of the State Legislatures under Entry 8 and the meaning of the phrase “intoxicating liquor”; whether “intoxicating liquor” in Entry 8 only includes potable alcohol, such as alcoholic beverages or also includes alcohol which is used in the production of other products; the 9 Judge Constitution Bench, with a ratio of 8:1, held the following:
[State of UP v. Lalta Prasad Vaish, ]
Whether legislator enjoys constitutional immunity from accusations of accepting bribes in connection with their vote in Parliament or state legislature
Supreme Court strips MPs, MLAs of Immunity for Casting Votes after taking Bribes: Breakdown of the 7-Judge verdict
The 7-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI*, AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar and Manoj Misra, JJ. overturned the 5-Judge Bench 1998 verdict in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), (1998) 4 SCC 626, wherein it was established that the Member of Parliaments (‘MP’) and Member of Legislative Assemblies (‘MLA’) enjoyed immunity if they cast vote in the House after taking bribe for it.
[Sita Soren v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 229]
Challenge to Electoral Bonds scheme
Supreme Court strikes down Electoral Bonds Scheme for being violative of right to information under Art. of
In a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Electoral Bond Scheme which introduced anonymous financial contributions to political parties , the 5-Judge Constitution Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, CJ., Sanjiv Khanna**, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, JJ. arrived at a unanimous verdict, giving two opinions, one authored by Dr. Justice DY Chandrachud for Justice Gavai, Justice Pardiwala and Justice Misra, and other by Justice Sanjiv Khanna arrived at same conclusion, with slight variance in the reasoning, and held that anonymous electoral bonds are violative of the right to information under Article of the . Thus, the electoral bonds scheme has been struck down for being unconstitutional.
[Assn. for Democratic Reforms (Electoral Bond Scheme) v. Union of India, ]
Constitutional challenge against Section
of
In-depth analysis of Supreme Court’s majority verdict on Section 6A of Citizenship Act
In a writ petition concerning the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, the 5-Judge Constitution Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, CJI, Surya Kant*, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. upheld the validity of Section 6A in a 4:1 majority, with Justice Pardiwala gave the dissenting opinion. In this case, the Chief Justice authored the majority opinion, while Justice Surya Kant wrote a separate opinion that was joined by Justices M.M. Sundresh and Manoj Misra. Justice JB Pardiwala, on the other hand, gave a dissenting opinion.
[Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, In Re, ]
Scope of the words “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of Constitution
Not all private properties are ‘material resources of community’ under Art. 39(b) for state to equally distribute; Supreme Court rules in landmark 7:2 verdict
The Nine-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of CJI Dr. DY Chandrachud, Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih, JJ., delivered its judgment on the issue of whether private resources form part of the ‘material resource of the community’ under Article of the . The majority judgment delivered by CJI Dr. DY Chandrachud by the ratio of 7:2 held that all the ‘private properties’ cannot form part of the ‘material resources of the community’ under Article of the . The Court unanimously held that Article 31-C of the Constitution to the extent that it was upheld in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 remains in force.
[Property Owners Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, ]
How private resources become resources ‘of community’ & distributed for common good? Deciphering Justice BV Nagarathna’s partial dissent in 9-J Bench verdict
The majority of 7:2 comprising of CJI Dr. DY Chandrachud, Hrishikesh Roy, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih, JJ., held that all the ‘private properties’ cannot form part of the ‘material resources of the community’ under Article of the . Justice BV Nagarathna partially concurred with the majority, however, on the aspect of Article 39(b) she opined that a private owned resource can be transformed and can indeed acquire the status of ‘material resource of the community’.
[Property Owners Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, ]
Mineral Rights
Explained | Supreme Court’s verdict on ‘royalty’ as tax and States power to levy cess on mining and mineral-use activities
In a matter concerning the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States on the taxation of mineral rights, the Nine Judge Constitution Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih JJ. has held that royalty paid by mining operators to the Central government is not a tax and that States have the power to levy cesses on mining and mineral-use activities. Whereas, Justice BV Nagarathna, gave a dissenting opinion.
[Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, ]
Supreme Court on Parliament’s power to impose limitations on State to levy tax on mineral rights
In a matter concerning the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States on the taxation of mineral rights, the Nine Judge Constitution Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih JJ. has held that royalty paid by mining operators to the Central government is not a tax and that States have the power to levy cesses on mining and mineral-use activities. Whereas, Justice BV Nagarathna, gave a dissenting opinion.
[Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, ]
Read Justice BV Nagarathna’s sole dissent in SC’s verdict on ‘royalty’ as tax and States power to levy cess on mineral rights
In a matter concerning the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States on the taxation of mineral rights, the Nine Judge Constitution Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih JJ. has held that royalty paid by mining operators to the Central government is not a tax and that States have the power to levy cesses on mining and mineral-use activities. Whereas, Justice BV Nagarathna, gave a dissenting opinion, she held that
[Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, ]
Judgment on States’ power to levy tax on mining and mineral-use activities to apply retrospectively from 2005: Supreme Court
In a matter concerning the question of applicability of the judgment dated 25-07-2024 in Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1796 (‘MADA’) , the 8 judges, who wrote the majority view in the 9- Judge Constitution Bench verdict, directed that while the States may levy or renew demands of tax, if any, pertaining to Entries 49 and 50 of List II of the Seventh Schedule in terms of the law laid down in the decision in MADA (supra), the demand of tax shall not operate on transactions made prior to 1-04-2005.
[Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL, ]
States’ power to sub-classify Scheduled Castes for providing reservation
‘Indra Sawhney did not limit sub-classification to OBCs; Sub-classification of SC/STs permissible’: A point wise breakdown of Majority Ruling in SC’s 6:1 Verdict
In a batch of civil appeal and special leave petitions, the seven Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., by a majority of 6:1, held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes among reserved categories is permissible for granting separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories. Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented holding that such sub-classification is not permissible.
[State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, ]
No automatic vacation of stay order in six months
No automatic vacation of stay order in six months: SC Constitution Bench overturns Asian Resurfacing judgment
The Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI along with Abhay S. Oka*, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal** and Manoj Misra, JJ. reversed its own 2018 ruling of a 3-Judge Bench and held that Constitutional Courts should not fix a timeline for disposal of cases pending in any court while exercising powers under Article 142. The Court further justified the stance that pattern of cases pending in various courts including High Courts is different.
[High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of UP, ]
Read the complete Constitution / Larger Bench verdicts here:
Challenge to the constitutional validity of UP Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004
UP Madarsa Education Act valid with exception to provisions regulating higher education degrees: Supreme Court
While considering the correctness of Allahabad High Court’s judgment in March 2024 wherein it had declared (Madrasa Act) to be unconstitutional; the 3 Judge Bench of Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ*., J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ., upheld Madarsa Act’s validity holding that it is consistent with the positive obligation of the State to ensure that students studying in recognised Madarsas attain a level of competency which will allow them to effectively participate in society and earn a living. The Court further held that Article of the and the Right to Education Act, 2009 must be read consistently with the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
[Anjum Kadari v. Union of India, ]
Arbitration Act: A self-contained code
Arbitration Act 1996 a self-contained code which does not distinguish between government and private entities: SC
The instant appeal challenged Madras High Court’s order that was passed in an interlocutory proceeding during the pendency of the Section , challenge, wherein the High Court had stayed the operation of an arbitral award on the condition that a bank guarantee be furnished in respect of the principal amount awarded. The 3-Judge Bench of Dr DY Chandrachud, CJ*., JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ., stated that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, which does not distinguish between governmental and private entities. Hence, the decision of the Court cannot be influenced by the position of the party before it and whether it is a fly-by-night operator.
[International Seaport Dredging (P) Ltd. v. Kamarajar Port Ltd., ]
Disqualification from an educational course cannot be solely based on quantified disability
Quantified disability per se will not disentitle a candidate with benchmark disability from admission to educational institutions: Supreme Court
In a civil appeal regarding the rendering of a candidate ineligible for the Persons with Disabilities (‘PwD’) reservation or for pursuing a medical course as per the National Medical Commission (‘NMC’) Gazette notification, the three judge bench of BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar and KV Viswanathan*, JJ. held that quantified disability per se will not disentitle a candidate with benchmark disability from being considered for admission to educational institutions. The candidate will be eligible if the Disability Assessment Board (‘DAB’) opines that notwithstanding the quantified disability the candidate can pursue the course in question. The NMC regulations in the notification of 13-05-2019 read with Appendix H-1 should, pending the re-formulation by NMC, be read in the light of the holdings in this judgment.
[Omkar Ramchandra Gond v. Union of India, ]
Did You Know? On 28-01-2024, Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi inaugurated the Diamond Jubilee celebrations of the Supreme Court of India, marking 75 years of its pivotal role in upholding justice and the rule of law in the country.
Challenge to caste-based discrimination in prisons
SC holds provisions of Prison Manuals/ Rules enabling caste-based discrimination of manual labour as unconstitutional
In a public interest litigation petition challenging the provisions of prison manuals of several states for allowing caste-based discrimination for division of manual labour, the three-Judge Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. found several lacunas in the manuals which violate the Constitutional principles and held that all such provisions to be unconstitutional.
[Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, ]
Whether arrest of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal was legal and is he entitled to bail in the CBI case
[Delhi Excise Liquor Policy] Supreme Court grants bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal in CBI case
In a set of two criminal appeals by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal seeking bail in the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (‘CBI’) case in the Delhi Excise Liquor Policy matter and challenging the legality of his arrest by the CBI, the Division Bench of Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. granted him bail. While separate judgments were penned by Justice Bhuyan and Kant, however, there was a concurrent opinion that Kejriwal was entitled to be released on bail, subject to the terms and conditions.
[Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI, ]
Urgent need to formulate institutional safety measures for medical professionals following murder and alleged rape of a doctor in Kolkata
[Kolkata Rape and Murder case] Supreme Court orders constitution of National Task Force to give recommendations on modalities ensuring safety at workplace
In the suo motu matter concerning the rape and murder of a doctor at the RG Kar Medical College Hospital at Kolkata, the three Judge Bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. said that it was deeply concerned about the absence of conditions of safety for doctors and medical professionals across the country, and ordered the constitution of a ten-member National Task Force, comprising doctors all over the country to give recommendations on the modalities to be followed all over the country to ensure safety at the workplace.
[In re: Alleged rape and murder incident of a trainee doctor in R.G. KAR medical college and hospital, Kolkata and related issues, ]
Use of judicial discretion when quashing rape conviction under IPC and POCSO
Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta HC verdict advising adolescent girls to control sexual urge
In a suo motu cognizance of the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Probhat Purkait v. State of W.B., (2023) 1 HCC (Cal) 626, whereby the High Court issued a slew of advisories to the male and female adolescents regarding the respect of a woman, protection of self-worth, dignity and privacy, and right to autonomy of the female’s body, and advised the female adolescent, identifying the duty or obligation to control sexual urge/urges as in the eyes of society she is the looser when she gives in to enjoying the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes, the Division Bench of Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. set aside the impugned decision.
[In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, ]
Did You Know? The Supreme Court of India this year unveiled a new statue of Lady Justice, marking a significant departure from traditional representations.
Whether Manish Sisodia is entitled to bail due to prolonged incarceration and delay in trial
Delhi Excise Liquor Policy Scam| Supreme Court grants bail to Manish Sisodia in both ED and CBI cases
In a set of two criminal appeals by Delhi’s former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia against Delhi High Court’s decisions, whereby his applications for bail in the Delhi Excise Liquor Policy Case was dismissed, the Division Bench of BR Gavai* and KV Viswanathan, JJ. granted him bail in both the cases registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (‘PMLA’) respectively.
[Manish Sisodia v. ED, ]
Whether the LG of Delhi is bound by aid and advice of Delhi Government when nominating members of Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Delhi LG not bound by aid & advice of State Government for appointment of aldermen: Supreme Court
A three Judge Bench comprising of CJI Dr. DY Chandrachud, JB Pardiwala and PS Narasimha, JJ. held that the LG is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of the Delhi Government when nominating members to the MCD under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the MCD Act.
[State (NCT of Delhi) v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, ]
Whether State Bar Councils can charge higher enrollment fee than set out in the Advocates Act
Bar Councils cannot charge more than amount specified under S. 24 of Advocates Act as enrolment fees: Supreme Court
In a writ petition filed against the Union Government, Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils for charging the exorbitant enrolment fees and declaring the amount taken as arbitrary, unreasonable, and illegal, the three Judge bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, J.B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, JJ. has held the following: The SBCs cannot charge “enrolment fees” beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) as it currently stands; Section 24(1)(f) specifically lays down the fiscal pre-conditions subject to which an advocate can be enrolled on State rolls. The SBCs and the BCI cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee and stamp duty, if any, as a pre-condition to enrolment; The decision of the SBCs to charge fees and charges at the time of enrolment in excess of the legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) violates Article 14 and Article of the ; and This decision will have prospective effect. The SBCs are not required to refund the excess enrolment fees collected before the date of this judgment.
[Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, ]
Challenge against the approval of hybrid transgenic mustard DMH-11 for environmental release
‘National Policy on Genetically Modified crops’: A breakdown of Justice Karol’s opinion upholding conditional approval to GM Mustard cultivation by Centre
In a batch of civil writ petitions assailing the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee’s (‘GEAC’) approval for environmental release of Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11) mustard, the Division Bench of B.V Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol, JJ. delivered split verdict in the matter Justice Nagarathna quashed the approval given by the GEAC and the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change (‘MoEFCC’), Justice Karol upheld the same.
[Gene Campaign v. Union of India, ]
‘Non-consideration of adverse effect on health of humans, animals, plants’: Justice Nagarathna on Centre’s approval for Genetically Modified mustard cultivation
In a batch of civil writ petitions assailing the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee’s (‘GEAC’) approval for environmental release of Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11) mustard, the Division Bench of B.V Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol, JJ. delivered split verdict in the matter Justice Nagarathna quashed the approval given by the GEAC and the Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC’), Justice Karol upheld the same.
[Gene Campaign v. Union of India, ]
Did You Know? On 01-09-2024, President Droupadi Murmu unveiled the new flag and insignia of the Supreme Court of India, during the two-day National Conference of District Judiciary.
Bilkis Bano gang rape case
Inside Supreme Court’s verdict on premature release of 11 convicts in Bilkis Bano gang rape case
In writ petitions against the Orders dated 10-08-2022, granting remission and early release of 11 convicts guilty of committing heinous crimes during the large-scale riots in Gujarat on 28-02-2002 which occurred in the aftermath of the burning of the train incident in Godhra in Gujarat on 27-02-2002, the division bench of BV Nagarathna* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. while setting aside the impugned orders of remission, held the following: The Government of State of Gujarat had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications for remission or pass the orders of remission on 10-08-2022 in favour of the convicts as it was not the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 432(7) of the CrPC. This Court’s order dated 13-05-2022 being vitiated and obtained by fraud as it was sought by suppression of material facts as well as by misrepresentation of facts, is therefore a nullity and non est in law. All proceedings taken pursuant to the said order also stand vitiated and are non est in the eye of law.
[Bilkis Yakub Rasool v Union of India, ]
[Bilkis Bano Gang rape case] Supreme Court indicates factors to be considered while entertaining application for remission under CrPC
In batch of pleas against the pre-mature release of 11 convicts sentenced to life imprisonment, who had gang raped Bilkis Bano and murdered her family members during the 2002 Gujarat Communal riots, the division bench of BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. set aside Gujarat Government’s decision to grant remission to 11 convicts and held that the Gujarat Government had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications for remission or pass the orders of remission on 10-08-2022 in favour of the convicts as it was not the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section of the (‘CrPC’). Further, the Court indicated the factors that must be considered while entertaining an application for remission under the provisions of the CrPC.
[Bilkis Yakub Rasool v Union of India, ]
Second National Judicial Pay Commission
‘Explained | Supreme Court’s verdict concerning allowances granted to judicial officers by Second National Judicial Pay Commission
In a writ petition concerning the allowances which have been granted to judicial officers and retired judicial officers by the Second National Judicial Pay Commission (‘SNJPC’), the three-Judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, CJI, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. While accepting the recommendations of SNJPC, directed the constitution of a ‘Committee for Service Conditions of the District Judiciary’ in each High Court for overseeing the implementation of the recommendations of the SNJPC. Further, it directed that the disbursements on account of arrears of salary, pension and allowances due and payable to judicial officers, retired judicial officers and family pensioners shall be computed and paid on or before 29-02-2024.
[All India Judges Association v Union of India, ]
Did You Know? On 31-08-2024, a commemorative postage stamp of denomination Rs. 10 was released to mark the 75th anniversary of the Supreme Court of India
Bail Conditions
Live location Bail Condition enabling police to constantly track movements and virtually peep into private life of accused cannot be imposed: SC
In a special leave to appeal against the Delhi High Court’s decision imposing condition for granting interim bail to a Nigerian national, accused under the (‘NDPS Act’), the Division Bench of Abhay S Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. while examining that whether a bail condition requiring an accused to share Google Maps pin with the investigating officer to access his location violates right to privacy, said that there can’t be a bail condition enabling the police to constantly track the movement of the accused on bail.
[Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, ]
Challenge to arrest under
and need to inform accused of grounds of arrest in writing
Supreme Court sets aside arrest and remand of NewsClick chief editor Prabir Purkayastha in UAPA case
In an appeal filed by Prabir Purkayastha, Chief editor of online news portal NewsClick, against the Judgment passed by Delhi High Court, wherein the Court dismissed his plea challenging his arrest and remand by the Delhi Police in connection with a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, the division bench of BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ. has set aside his arrest and remand and ordered his release subject to him furnishing surety and bail bond.
[Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), ]
Did You Know? On 07-11-2024, the Supreme Court of India took a significant step towards enhancing its technological infrastructure by establishing an on-premises Data Centre.
Whether interim orders passed by High Courts automatically expire after six months
No automatic vacation of stay order in six months: SC Constitution Bench overturns Asian Resurfacing judgment
The Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI along with Abhay S. Oka*, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal** and Manoj Misra, JJ. reversed its own 2018 ruling of a 3-Judge Bench and held that Constitutional Courts should not fix a timeline for disposal of cases pending in any court while exercising powers under Article 142. The Court further justified the stance that pattern of cases pending in various courts including High Courts is different.
[High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of UP, ]
Challenge to the mayoral elections of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation
Chandigarh Mayor Polls | Supreme Court directs election record to be sequestered under custody of PHHC
In a petition filed by the defeated Chandigarh Mayor candidate of Aam Aadmi Party — Kuldeep Kumar, challenging Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to stay recent elections, a Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. ordered to sequester the entire record of Mayor elections to be kept with the High Court Registrar General, and to preserve the ballots and videography. The Bench further directed the Deputy Commissioner of Chandigarh UT, having possession of the original records, to hand them over to the HC Registrar General today by 5 PM.
[Kuldeep Kumar v. State (UT of Chandigarh), ]
Bail under Section 43D (5) of UAPA
Supreme Court illuminates on bail under Section 43D (5) of UAPA against general rule of CrPC
In an appeal against rejection of application under Section of for a matter involving offences under Sections , , , of the (‘IPC’), Sections , , of the (‘UAPA’) and Sections and 54 of , the Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar*, JJ. refused to grant bail while explaining the rule against bail delineating provisions under UAPA as against general rule under CrPC.
[Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, ]
Environment Law
‘Constitutional Courts monitor functioning of environmental bodies to protect environment and ecology’; SC lays down Guidelines for effective functioning of authorities
The three Judges Bench of B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. while hearing a petition on the functioning and constitution of the Central Empowered Committee, the Court gave a slew of directions for the effective functioning of bodies, authorities, regulators, and executive offices entrusted with environmental duties.
[In Re: T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, ]
Supreme Court recognises Oran lands as ‘Forests’ under Forest Conservation Act; Issues directions to protect ‘sacred groves’ of Rajasthan
In a matter concerning the protection of the sacred groves/Orans of Rajasthan, the three Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, S.V.N. Bhatti, and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. directed the authorities concerned to ensure implementation of the directions given in this judgment in letter and spirit, and to also consider the suggestions during the implementation of these directions. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Government of India, Forest Department, Government of Rajasthan were directed to file a compliance report regarding constitution of the Committee.
[In re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, ]
Byju’s insolvency case
Supreme Court overturns NCLAT judgment that closed insolvency process against Byju’s, following settlement with BCCI
In a civil appeal filed by US-based financial creditor Glas Trust Company (‘appellant’) against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, (‘NCLAT’), wherein the Tribunal approved a settlement in relation to the dues payable to Think and Learn Pvt Ltd (Corporate debtor) the parent company of Byju’s , by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (‘BCCI’) and set aside the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) that initiated the corporate insolvency resolution process (‘CIRP’) against Think and Learn, the three Judge Bench of Dr DY Chandrachud*, CJI, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. set aside the impugned judgment, and said that it would not be appropriate for this Court to adjudicate on the objections of the appellant to the settlement agreement on merits, as the issues raised are the subject matter of several litigations in different fora, including the Delaware Court and investigation by various authorities, including the Enforcement Directorate, which are pending.
[Glas Trust Co. LLC v. Byju Raveendran, ]
Guidelines for High Court Judges
Supreme Court issues guidelines for High Court Judges regarding time limit for pronouncement of judgments
While considering the instant appeal, wherein the appellant alleged that the relevant reasoned order for his case was passed after 1 year in 2024 and the same was ante-dated to project that it was passed in 2023; the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ., strictly observed the egregious breach of law by the Gujarat High Court in dealing with the appellant’s case.
[Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, ]
Section 498-A
‘Proceedings initiated with ulterior motive, used as weapon’; SC quashes proceedings against parents-in-law under S. 498-A of IPC
In a criminal appeal against a decision of the Bombay High Court, whereby the accused persons’ (parents-in-law) application under Section of the (‘CrPC’) for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report (‘FIR’) for offences punishable under Sections , , and of the (‘IPC’) was dismissed, the Division Bench of BR Gavai* and KV Viswanathan, JJ. allowed their appeal, opining that only stating that cruelty has been committed due to some reason, would not amount to the offence under Section 498-A of IPC being attracted. The Court stated that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive of pressurising the son/ husband to consent to the divorce according to the terms of the complainant-wife, hence, the Court set aside the High Court’s decision.
[Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, ]
Supreme Court quashes false dowry case; highlights growing misuse of Section 498A IPC against husband and his family for personal vendetta
In a criminal appeal filed against the order passed by the Telangana High Court, wherein the Court refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused persons under Section of the (‘IPC’) and Section and of the (‘Dowry Act’), the division bench of BV Nagarathna* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. while setting aside the impugned order, and quashing the FIR, opined that the impugned FIR was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against the husband and his family members.
[Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, ]
SC discusses essential ingredients of S. 306 IPC while discharging husband & his family from charges of abetting wife’s suicide
In a criminal appeal against a decision of the Gujarat High Court whereby the revision application filed by the accused persons herein was rejected and the High Court refused to discharge them of the offences punishable under Sections , and of the (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. partly allowed the appeal discharging the accused of charges under Section 306 opining that- mere harassment and such issues between the wife and her husband along with the in-laws did not appear to create a scenario where the deceased-wife was left with no option other than to end her life. The Court held that the essential ingredient of mens rea to instigate the suicide of the deceased persons was absent.
[Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat, ]
Alimony
Supreme Court calls for consistent approach in seeking and granting alimony regardless of spousal wealth; criticises trend of seeking alimony as means to equalise wealth
While deliberating over the instant petition filed by the wife under Section of the (CPC) seeking transfer of divorce petition from Family Court, Bhopal to Family Court, Pune; the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna* and Pankaj Mithal, JJ., had to consider whether the wife was entitled to the aforesaid relief, but also whether the Court, upon the application filed by the husband, can exercise its powers under Article of the to grant a decree of divorce to the parties herein on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage; if yes, then on what terms.
[Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, ]
‘Blot on Constitution’; SC aghast over HC staying proceedings in a case where woman was humiliated, accused of witchcraft & disrobed
In a special leave petition criminal challenging the Patna High Court’s order staying the investigation in a case wherein, the accused persons were accused of subjecting a female to allegations of witchcraft and also disrobing her, the Division Bench of CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol*, JJ. was aghast over the High Court’s order and directed the Trial Court concerned to take the matter on day-to-day basis.
[Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay v. Srikant Upadhyay, ]
Murder
From Death Row to Life: Supreme Court commutes sentence of man convicted for Sexual assault and murder of 4-year-old boy
In a criminal appeal filed by the appellant (convict) convicted for the offences of kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of a four-year-old child, the three Judge bench of B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K. V. Viswanathan*, JJ. while maintaining the conviction under Sections , , of the (‘IPC’) and Sections and of (‘POCSO Act’), set aside the sentence of death for the offence under Section 302 and substitute the same with that of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 25 years without remission. Further, the Court ordered that the sentence imposed for offences under Section 364 IPC (10 years S.I. and Rs. 10,000/- fine) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (life imprisonment and Rs.10,000/- fine) to run concurrently with the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 25 years without remission.
[Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat, ]
Know why Supreme Court decided to acquit and quash death sentence of 2012 Pune Triple Murder accused
Considering the instant appeal filed by the appellant accused in Pune Triple Murder case of 2012, challenging the confirmation of conviction and death sentence by Bombay High Court, the 3- Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai*, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., taking note of discrepancies in testimony of key prosecution witness and failure of prosecution to prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, quashed his conviction and sentence and deemed it fit to acquit him.
[Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra, ]
‘FIR not an encyclopedia, but can be used to corroborate or contradict informant’; SC upholds acquittal of 3 in 28-year-old murder case
In a criminal appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversing the conviction recorded by the Trial Court against the accused persons, the Division Bench of CT Ravikumar* and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. agreed with the High Court’s decision of acquittal and refused to interfere with the same. The Court upheld the High Court’s view in finding the prosecution witnesses unreliable.
[State of M.P. v. Ramjan Khan, ]
Supreme Court acquits three accused of murdering their sister-in-law in 27-yr-old case
In a set of two criminal appeals assailing the Jharkhand High Court’s judgment upholding the separate judgments of conviction and orders of sentence passed by the Trial Court convicting the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section of the (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ. found that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of incriminating circumstances against the accused persons by convincing evidence and beyond the shadow of doubt, hence, held that the Trial Court, as well as the High Court, erred while appreciating the evidence. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned decisions and acquitted the accused persons.
[Nusrat Parween v. State of Jharkhand, ]
‘Use of lethal weapon and precise targeting of vital organs establish intent for murder’; SC upholds UDF sympathizer’s life term in 2006 LDF worker murder case
In an appeal filed against the judgment and order passed by the Kerala High Court, whereby the appeal of the convict 1, against his conviction under Sections , and read with Section of (‘IPC’) has been dismissed, the division bench of Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. while upholding the conviction and sentence, held that the courts below have rightly concluded that the convict’s actions amount to murder under Section 300, IPC and thus punishable under Section 302 IPC. Further, the Court dismissed the appeal for reduction of the sentence.
[Kunhimuhammed v. State of Kerala, ]
No Constitutional Court can direct Trial Courts to write orders on bail
‘No Constitutional Court can direct Trial Courts to write bail orders in particular manner’; SC expunges adverse remarks and directions against District & Sessions Judge
In a criminal appeal by a Judicial Officer assailing the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to the extent of adverse remarks and directions made against him, the Division Bench of Abhay S Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ. allowed the appeal and expunged the adverse directions and remarks, holding that no Constitutional Court can direct the Trial Courts to write orders on bail applications in a particular manner. The Court opined that the High Court’s observations against the Judicial Officer were completely uncalled for, the entire exercises done by the High Court right from issuing directions in the case of Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan1 and passing impugned orders was not only unwarranted but illegal.
[Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, ]
Places of worship
No fresh registration of suits against places of worship; SC stays passing of final/ survey orders in existing matters
A special bench comprising of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, JJ. while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the , directed that though fresh suits can be filed, no suits would be registered in the country against places of worship till further orders from this Court, considering that the present matter is sub-judice.
[Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, ]
Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act
Explained | Why SC referred matter concerning clear interpretation of S. 14, Hindu Succession Act to larger bench
While considering the instant appeal revolving around Section 14 of the , the Division Bench of P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., noted that there are many decisions which are not only inconsistent with one another on principle but have tried to negotiate a contrary view by distinguishing them on facts or by simply ignoring the binding decision. Hence the Court was of the view that there must be clarity and certainty in the interpretation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.
[Tej Bhan v. Ram Kishan, ]
Directives on the role of public prosecutors and legal aid counsels
Supreme Court issues directives on the role of public prosecutors and legal aid counsels to safeguard fairness and fundamental rights in criminal trials
In a criminal appeal filed against the conviction order of a man accused of rape and murder of a ten-year-old minor, passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Allahabad High Court, the three Judge bench of Abhay S. Oka*, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih, JJ. set aside the conviction, as the accused was not provided with proper legal aid during the trial, which violated his fundamental right to a fair trial under Article of the . Further, the Court issued a series of directives concerning the critical roles of the Public Prosecutor and Legal Aid Counsels in ensuring procedural fairness and safeguarding the fundamental rights of the accused in criminal trials.
[Ashok v. State of U.P., ]
Abetment of suicide
Refusal to marry in a relationship does not amount to criminal liability for abetment of suicide: Supreme Court
In a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court, wherein the High Court convicted the accused for the offences under Sections (Punishment for cheating) and (Abetment of suicide) of the (IPC), reversing the Trail Court’s acquittal order, the division bench of Pankaj Mithal* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. while setting aside the impugned conviction order, held that simply because the accused refused to marry the deceased did not equate to instigating, inciting, or provoking the deceased to take her own life. Therefore, the refusal by the accused to marry her, under these circumstances, did not amount to criminal liability for abetment of suicide.
[Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi v. State of Karnataka, ]
Child Care leaves
Supreme Court directs Himachal Pradesh Govt. to reconsider grant of Child Care leaves to mothers, including making special provisions consistent with RPwD Act
In a special leave petition against the judgment and order passed by Himachal Pradesh High Court, wherein the Court dismissed the petition concerning adoption of Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972, (‘CCS (Leave) Rules’) on the ground that Rule 43-C has been deleted by the State of Himachal Pradesh, the division bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI and J.B. Pardiwala, J. has directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to reconsider the entire aspect of the grant of Child Care Leave to mothers, including making special provisions consistent with the objects and purpose of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (‘RPwD Act’) to mothers who are bringing up children with special needs. Further, the Court directed that a committee chaired by the Chief Secretary of the State of Himachal Pradesh be constituted to look into all aspects of the matter.
[Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh, ]
Consumer Dispute|
‘Eggshell Skull rule’ to be applied in Medical Negligence Cases of victims with pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition: Supreme Court
In an appeal regarding medical negligence filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation, the division bench of Sanjay Karol* and Aravind Kumar, JJ. while setting aside the impugned orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’) and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘State Commission’), directed the Hospital to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs accompanied by interest at 9% from the date of the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (‘District Forum’) to the appellant, within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. The Court also imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/- in litigation cost.
[Jyoti Devi v. Suket Hospital, ]
Month wise roundups of 2024 can be accessed here:
The post appeared first on .