 |
|
The year 2024 witnessed a flurry of significant judicial pronouncements from the Supreme Court of India, eight of which stand out as particularly impactful. These rulings, delivered under the tenure of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and later his successor, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, have far-reaching consequences for Indian law, politics, and society. The cases covered a wide spectrum of issues, ranging from election financing and legislative ethics to the rights of women and the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to reservation policies and property rights. A common thread running through many of these judgements is a push toward greater transparency and accountability, a hallmark of Chief Justice Chandrachud's leadership.
One of the most noteworthy decisions was the invalidation of the Electoral Bonds Scheme on February 15th. The Court found the scheme, designed to regulate political party funding, unconstitutional due to its lack of transparency and violation of the right to information guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This ruling directly addressed concerns about the potential for illicit funding of political campaigns and underscored the importance of open and accountable governance. The scheme, while intending to curb black money, ironically failed to achieve this goal by operating in a manner that obscured the sources of funding. The court's decision to declare it unconstitutional emphasizes the paramount importance of transparency in electoral processes, a cornerstone of a healthy democracy.
Another landmark judgement, delivered on March 4th, dealt with the immunity of Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies from prosecution in bribery cases. A seven-judge bench decisively overturned previous precedents, holding that MPs and MLAs cannot claim immunity for accepting bribes in exchange for votes or speeches. This decision, while facing challenges from some quarters, signified a strong assertion of the Supreme Court's commitment to upholding the principles of probity and ethical conduct in public life. The court explicitly addressed the issue of stare decisis (precedent), emphasizing that it was not an immutable rule and that larger benches could reconsider previous decisions in cases where public interest was significantly at stake. The ruling holds far-reaching consequences for combating corruption within the legislative branches of government, a crucial step in fostering trust and accountability.
The Supreme Court's ruling on July 10th regarding maintenance for divorced Muslim women clarified that such women are entitled to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This decision ensures that Muslim women divorced by their husbands enjoy equivalent maintenance rights as provided under both secular law and personal law provisions. This ruling underscores the court's commitment to gender equality and the equitable treatment of women under the law, regardless of their religious affiliation. The court cleverly harmonized the seemingly conflicting provisions of secular and personal laws, thereby affirming the right to maintenance for divorced Muslim women without undermining the existing legal framework.
The August 1st judgement on sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) significantly impacts India's reservation policy. The court allowed sub-classification within SC categories, permitting the creation of separate quotas for more backward groups within the SC community. This decision reversed a previous ruling that had treated SCs as a homogenous group. The implications of this decision are extensive, potentially leading to more equitable distribution of benefits within the SC community and addressing historical inequalities within the community itself. The dissent in this judgement highlights the continued debate about the efficacy and fairness of India’s reservation policies.
On October 17th, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, a clause implementing the Assam Accord. However, even with the majority upholding the constitutional validity, Justice JB Pardiwala offered a dissenting opinion highlighting the element of arbitrariness in the scheme due to the lack of a temporal limit. This judgement has implications for citizenship and immigration policies, particularly in the context of Assam, with Justice Pardiwala's dissent adding a dimension to the ongoing discourse on the subject. The dissent, while not altering the majority ruling, points to future legal challenges and considerations of fairness and procedural justice.
The November 6th judgement concerning Article 39(b) of the Constitution clarified the extent to which private property can be distributed by the State for the common good. In a landmark reversal of a previous decision, the court ruled that not all private properties fall under the ambit of “material resources of the community.” This ruling has significant implications for land acquisition and property rights, striking a balance between the State's power and the rights of private property owners. The partial concurrence and dissent amongst the judges also indicate the complexities of balancing competing constitutional principles in this area.
The Supreme Court's November 5th decision upheld the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Education Act 2004, rejecting the Allahabad High Court's earlier decision to strike it down. This ruling affirmed the State's right to regulate the standards of education in minority institutions while preserving the rights of minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions. This case reflects the continuing tension between the State's power to regulate and the constitutional rights of minorities. The court attempted to balance these competing considerations, showing its concern for the standards of education while safeguarding the autonomy of minority institutions.
Finally, the Supreme Court's November 13th decision put a halt to the practice of “bulldozer justice,” where authorities demolish homes and properties without due process. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and due process, condemning the practice as a violation of fundamental rights and reminiscent of a “lawless state of affairs.” This landmark ruling underscores the importance of upholding the rule of law and the fundamental rights of individuals, even amidst concerns about public order and security. The strong language employed by the judges highlights the severity of this violation of the principles of justice and fairness.
Beyond these eight key judgements, other events and changes within the Supreme Court also marked the year 2024. The retirement of Chief Justice Chandrachud and the subsequent appointment of Justice Sanjiv Khanna marked a significant transition. Changes in the court's emblem, the establishment of a museum, and the scrapping of summer breaks to address case backlog all generated discussion and debate amongst legal circles. The decision to remove the law degree requirement for journalist accreditation to the Supreme Court received positive feedback, demonstrating a proactive approach to improved transparency and engagement with the media. These changes, along with the landmark judgements, are indicative of the Supreme Court's continuous efforts to adapt to the evolving needs of the Indian legal system and the expectations of the public.
Source: 2024 in Supreme Court: Eight judgements which will reverberate