By Inderjit Badhwar
The Supreme Court of India, often referred to as the “sentinel on the qui vive,” has played an indispensable role in upholding constitutional values and safeguarding the rights of citizens. In 2024, the apex court delivered several landmark judgments that demonstrated its commitment to justice, transparency and equity. However, its performance has not been without controversy. This analysis critically examines the Court’s role in key areas such as human rights, social justice, federalism, political accountability, and economic jurisprudence, assessing how its decisions might shape India’s future
The Supreme Court’s rulings in cases involving human rights violations in 2024 underscored its dedication to upholding the rule of law. The Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs Union of India case, where the remission of sentences for 11 convicts was nullified, exemplified the Judiciary’s resolve to ensure justice for victims of heinous crimes. This judgment reaffirmed that administrative decisions must align with constitutional principles and highlighted the Judiciary’s capacity to check arbitrary executive actions.
However, the Court faced criticism for delays in adjudicating cases with significant human rights implications. For instance, the lack of decisive intervention in ongoing cases of extrajudicial killings and custodial violence raised questions about the Court’s prioritization of such matters. While the guidelines on illegal demolitions provided a much-needed safeguard against arbitrary state actions, their enforcement remains uncertain in the absence of robust monitoring mechanisms.
The Court’s mixed performance in human rights cases suggests that while it remains a critical protector of individual dignity, its ability to address systemic abuses effectively depends on reducing delays and enhancing judicial accountability.
One of the most significant judgments of 2024 was the decision to allow sub-categorization within Scheduled Castes (SCs) for targeted affirmative action. Overturning the precedent set by EV Chinnaiah, the Court embraced the principle of substantive equality, acknowledging that uniform reservation policies often fail to address disparities within marginalized communities.
This progressive step aligns with India’s evolving understanding of social justice. However, the judgment also highlighted the challenges of relying on empirical data for policy implementation. The lack of clear guidelines on how such data will be collected and used leaves room for administrative inefficiency and potential litigation, which could undermine the intended benefits of this ruling.
The Court’s engagement with social justice issues remains commendable, but its effectiveness will largely depend on how these judgments are translated into actionable policies by the government.
In 2024, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle of federalism through key decisions such as the ruling on royalties for mineral resources. By upholding states’ rights to impose royalties independently of the central government, the Court empowered states to manage their resources and finances more effectively.
This judgment could have far-reaching implications for India’s federal structure, particularly in an era where state governments are increasingly asserting their autonomy. However, critics argue that the Court has been inconsistent in its approach to federalism, as evidenced by its reluctance to intervene decisively in cases involving the misuse of central agencies in opposition-ruled states.
If the judiciary aspires to be a true arbiter of federal balance, it must adopt a more consistent stance in addressing disputes between the Centre and states, ensuring that political considerations do not overshadow constitutional principles.
The Supreme Court’s annulment of the Electoral Bond Scheme marked a watershed moment for political transparency. By declaring the scheme unconstitutional, the Court recognized voters’ right to know the sources of political funding, a critical step towards curbing corruption and strengthening democratic accountability.
However, the judgment also exposed systemic challenges in implementing electoral reforms. While the Court has emphasized the need for transparency, it has largely refrained from addressing other pressing issues, such as the criminalization of politics and the lack of inner-party democracy. These gaps in judicial intervention risk perpetuating a political culture that prioritizes short-term gains over long-term institutional integrity.
The Court’s decisions in this domain could serve as a foundation for broader reforms, but sustained judicial and legislative efforts are required to address the root causes of political opacity.
The Supreme Court’s nuanced approach to property rights in 2024 reflected its effort to balance individual rights with collective welfare. The decision to restrict the classification of private property as a “material resource of the community” under Article 31C underscored the need to safeguard constitutional guarantees while promoting wealth redistribution under Directive Principles.
Similarly, the Court’s rulings on taxation and resource allocation demonstrated its awareness of the economic challenges facing the nation. However, its reluctance to engage deeply with corporate governance and environmental concerns has been a point of contention. For instance, the lack of a clear stance on issues like climate change litigation and corporate social responsibility undermines the judiciary’s potential to influence sustainable economic development.
The Court’s evolving economic jurisprudence suggests a willingness to adapt to contemporary challenges, but its impact will depend on how effectively it balances competing interests.
Despite its achievements, the Supreme Court’s functioning in 2024 was marred by concerns over judicial independence. Allegations of executive interference in judicial appointments and delays in filling vacancies highlighted the need for greater transparency in the collegium system.
Additionally, the increasing reliance on sealed covers and in-camera proceedings raised questions about the Court’s commitment to procedural fairness. Critics argue that such practices undermine public confidence in the judiciary and compromise the principle of open justice.
To maintain its credibility, the Supreme Court must address these structural issues and reaffirm its autonomy from political and institutional pressures.
The Supreme Court’s performance in 2024 has set important precedents that will shape India’s legal and political landscape. Its proactive stance on human rights, social justice and federalism has reaffirmed its role as a defender of constitutional values. However, the challenges of delays, inconsistencies, and perceived executive influence could hinder its ability to deliver justice effectively.
As India navigates complex social, economic and political challenges, the judiciary’s role will remain pivotal. To ensure a just and equitable future, the Supreme Court must continue to evolve, embracing transparency, efficiency and accountability while resisting external pressures. Only then can it fulfill its mandate as the guardian of India’s democracy.
The post appeared first on .
The Supreme Court of India, often referred to as the “sentinel on the qui vive,” has played an indispensable role in upholding constitutional values and safeguarding the rights of citizens. In 2024, the apex court delivered several landmark judgments that demonstrated its commitment to justice, transparency and equity. However, its performance has not been without controversy. This analysis critically examines the Court’s role in key areas such as human rights, social justice, federalism, political accountability, and economic jurisprudence, assessing how its decisions might shape India’s future
Human rights and the rule of law
The Supreme Court’s rulings in cases involving human rights violations in 2024 underscored its dedication to upholding the rule of law. The Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs Union of India case, where the remission of sentences for 11 convicts was nullified, exemplified the Judiciary’s resolve to ensure justice for victims of heinous crimes. This judgment reaffirmed that administrative decisions must align with constitutional principles and highlighted the Judiciary’s capacity to check arbitrary executive actions.
However, the Court faced criticism for delays in adjudicating cases with significant human rights implications. For instance, the lack of decisive intervention in ongoing cases of extrajudicial killings and custodial violence raised questions about the Court’s prioritization of such matters. While the guidelines on illegal demolitions provided a much-needed safeguard against arbitrary state actions, their enforcement remains uncertain in the absence of robust monitoring mechanisms.
The Court’s mixed performance in human rights cases suggests that while it remains a critical protector of individual dignity, its ability to address systemic abuses effectively depends on reducing delays and enhancing judicial accountability.
Strengthening social justice
One of the most significant judgments of 2024 was the decision to allow sub-categorization within Scheduled Castes (SCs) for targeted affirmative action. Overturning the precedent set by EV Chinnaiah, the Court embraced the principle of substantive equality, acknowledging that uniform reservation policies often fail to address disparities within marginalized communities.
This progressive step aligns with India’s evolving understanding of social justice. However, the judgment also highlighted the challenges of relying on empirical data for policy implementation. The lack of clear guidelines on how such data will be collected and used leaves room for administrative inefficiency and potential litigation, which could undermine the intended benefits of this ruling.
The Court’s engagement with social justice issues remains commendable, but its effectiveness will largely depend on how these judgments are translated into actionable policies by the government.
Federalism and state autonomy
In 2024, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle of federalism through key decisions such as the ruling on royalties for mineral resources. By upholding states’ rights to impose royalties independently of the central government, the Court empowered states to manage their resources and finances more effectively.
This judgment could have far-reaching implications for India’s federal structure, particularly in an era where state governments are increasingly asserting their autonomy. However, critics argue that the Court has been inconsistent in its approach to federalism, as evidenced by its reluctance to intervene decisively in cases involving the misuse of central agencies in opposition-ruled states.
If the judiciary aspires to be a true arbiter of federal balance, it must adopt a more consistent stance in addressing disputes between the Centre and states, ensuring that political considerations do not overshadow constitutional principles.
Political accountability and electoral reform
The Supreme Court’s annulment of the Electoral Bond Scheme marked a watershed moment for political transparency. By declaring the scheme unconstitutional, the Court recognized voters’ right to know the sources of political funding, a critical step towards curbing corruption and strengthening democratic accountability.
However, the judgment also exposed systemic challenges in implementing electoral reforms. While the Court has emphasized the need for transparency, it has largely refrained from addressing other pressing issues, such as the criminalization of politics and the lack of inner-party democracy. These gaps in judicial intervention risk perpetuating a political culture that prioritizes short-term gains over long-term institutional integrity.
The Court’s decisions in this domain could serve as a foundation for broader reforms, but sustained judicial and legislative efforts are required to address the root causes of political opacity.
Economic jurisprudence and property rights
The Supreme Court’s nuanced approach to property rights in 2024 reflected its effort to balance individual rights with collective welfare. The decision to restrict the classification of private property as a “material resource of the community” under Article 31C underscored the need to safeguard constitutional guarantees while promoting wealth redistribution under Directive Principles.
Similarly, the Court’s rulings on taxation and resource allocation demonstrated its awareness of the economic challenges facing the nation. However, its reluctance to engage deeply with corporate governance and environmental concerns has been a point of contention. For instance, the lack of a clear stance on issues like climate change litigation and corporate social responsibility undermines the judiciary’s potential to influence sustainable economic development.
The Court’s evolving economic jurisprudence suggests a willingness to adapt to contemporary challenges, but its impact will depend on how effectively it balances competing interests.
Challenges to judicial independence
Despite its achievements, the Supreme Court’s functioning in 2024 was marred by concerns over judicial independence. Allegations of executive interference in judicial appointments and delays in filling vacancies highlighted the need for greater transparency in the collegium system.
Additionally, the increasing reliance on sealed covers and in-camera proceedings raised questions about the Court’s commitment to procedural fairness. Critics argue that such practices undermine public confidence in the judiciary and compromise the principle of open justice.
To maintain its credibility, the Supreme Court must address these structural issues and reaffirm its autonomy from political and institutional pressures.
Impact on India’s future
The Supreme Court’s performance in 2024 has set important precedents that will shape India’s legal and political landscape. Its proactive stance on human rights, social justice and federalism has reaffirmed its role as a defender of constitutional values. However, the challenges of delays, inconsistencies, and perceived executive influence could hinder its ability to deliver justice effectively.
As India navigates complex social, economic and political challenges, the judiciary’s role will remain pivotal. To ensure a just and equitable future, the Supreme Court must continue to evolve, embracing transparency, efficiency and accountability while resisting external pressures. Only then can it fulfill its mandate as the guardian of India’s democracy.
The post appeared first on .