In 2024, the Indian judiciary delivered several significant judgments that have had a profound impact on various aspects of law and society. Here are some of the most notable decisions:
- All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors., [2024] 1 S.C.R. 327 | Judicial Implementation Pay Commission: On 4th January, 2024 the Supreme Court directed all High Courts to form two-judge committees to ensure uniformity in the service conditions for judicial officers, following the Second National Judicial Pay Commission’s recommendations.
- Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Others, [2024] 1 S.C.R. 743 | Allegation of Power Misuse by Gujarat Government: The first significant ruling to garner media attention from the Supreme Court in 2024 was a ruling that overturned the Gujarat government’s order to free 11 prisoners in the Bilkis Bano case. For the gang rape and killing of Bano’s family during the Gujarat Riots in 2002, the defendants received life sentences. For many people in the country, the crime had shaken their consciences. Notably, the Maharashtra government is the proper body to consider remission because the offenders were sentenced in Mumbai. The ruling implies that the Gujarati government took into consideration the convicts’ application while knowing that they were applying to the incorrect administration. According to the ruling, the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Gujarati government behaved “in tandem” with the prisoners. In his ruling, Justice B.V. Nagarathna reaffirmed that applications for remission can only be taken into consideration if the convicted adhere to the law. The rulings also said that courts have the power to revoke remission orders, even if the administrative branch makes the final decision about convicts’ release.
- Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, [2024] 1 S.C.R. 87 | Admissibility of Evidence from Accused Outside Formal Police Custody: On 3rd January 2024, the Supreme Court rules that evidence from an accused person not in formal police custody can be admissible in legal proceedings in certain cases. The Court maintained that “custody” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not necessitate a formal arrest and encompasses any type of police control, constraint, or surveillance. As a result, the body and further evidence were recovered, proving the appellant’s involvement in the crime and making his disclosure admissible. The case against the appellant was further reinforced by the motive, circumstantial evidence, and his incapacity to offer a different explanation.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Judges of Supreme Court and High Court at Allahabad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 14 | Summoning Government Officials: The Judges nationwide were instructed by a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud to use caution when calling government representatives and to avoid making oral comments that could embarrass the official in question. The court further stated that if the matter at hand can be resolved by affidavits or other documents, then the attendance of authorities may not be required.
- Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India, 2024 INSC 113 | Constitutional Validity of Electoral Bond Scheme: The Court unanimously invalidated the Union’s 2018 Electoral Bonds (EB) Scheme on February 15, 2024. The Bench determined that the Scheme infringed upon the Constitution’s Article 19(1)(a) guarantee of voters’ access to knowledge. Additionally, the Court ordered an immediate halt to the selling of electoral bonds. SBI was instructed to provide the ECI with information about the electoral bonds it has bought from April 12, 2019. This will contain information about the buyer and the political parties to which the bonds were issued. Additionally, the Court mandated that the ECI post the material given by SBI on its official website within a week of receiving it. The Supreme Court held that the electoral bond scheme violates voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a) by anonymizing political donations.
- Arvind Kejriwal v Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 512 | Bail for Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal: The strict interpretation of the bail standards in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, was loosened as a result of the Arvind Kejriwal bail controversy. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) detained Kejriwal on suspicion of involvement in the Delhi Liquor Policy fraud. In relation to the same scheme, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) also arrested him on corruption charges. The Supreme Court pointed out that Kejriwal had been imprisoned for extended periods of time and that it was unlikely that his case would go to trial anytime soon. In the context of PMLA cases, the Court repeatedly reaffirmed the adage “bail is the rule, jail is the exception.” According to these developments, the Court has made significant progress since upholding the onerous bail requirements under the PMLA in the July 2022 case of Vijay Madanlal. The Kejriwal case also established a new standard for judging whether an arrest is lawful under the PMLA: “need and necessity.”
- Shalini Dharmani v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 653 | Supreme Court Affirms Childcare Leave as a Constitutional Right for Women Employees: On 23rd April 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that women employees are entitled to two years of childcare leave in addition to maternity leave, affirming it as a constitutional right. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case is a major step in defending women’s constitutional right to work, giving state assistance to female government workers so they can manage their work and parental obligations. The need for this protection is particularly important when caring for a child with special needs.
- Mineral Area Development Authority v Steel Authority of India, 2024 INSC 607; State of UP v Lalta Prasad Vaish, 2024 INSC 812 | Taxation of mines and minerals and regulation of industrial alcohol: This year, two nine-judge benches dealt with the distribution of law-making powers between the Union and state governments. In the Mineral Area Development Authority, an 8:1 majority held that Parliament’s power to make laws on mines and minerals cannot be extended so far as to usurp states’ powers to legislate on the subject. In Lalta Prasad Vaish, a similar majority found that the Union’s powers under List I of the Seventh Schedule cannot be used. In these judgments, which were viewed as a boost to state autonomy, the majority concluded that a clear division of legislative powers between states and the central was vital to sustaining India’s federal structure. They emphasized the need of reading the two Lists such that states’ legislative rights were not read narrowly. Interestingly, Justice Nagarathna dissented, expressing identical concerns in both cases. She observed that the Union’s control over vital issues such as minerals and industrial alcohol enabled the central government to make decisions that prevented uneven economic development and discouraged inter-state rivalry. “It is all important that this edifice is not dislodged while attempting to dynamically interpret the Constitution,” she stated in an email.
- State of Punjab v Davinder Singh, 2024 INSC 562 | Validity of sub-classification within reserved categories: In a potentially far-reaching decision on affirmative action law in the country, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court maintained states’ authority to create sub-classifications inside the reserved Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories (SC/ST). The bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, overruled E.V. Chinnaiah v Union of India (2004) with a 6:1 majority. The majority argued that sub-classification was permissible to provide “substantive equality” because different communities on the SC/ST list experienced varying levels of discrimination and inequality. However, the bench ruled that any statute establishing sub-classifications must be supported by empirical data and will be open to judicial review. Following the decision, some state governments indicated that they were eager to push sub-classification.
- Just Rights for Children Alliance v S. Harish, 2024 INSC 716 | Possessing child pornography punishable under POCSO Act: As a consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision in Just Rights for Children Alliance v S Harish on September 24, 2024, India has joined a group of jurisdictions that have specifically criminalized the viewing, storage, and possession of ‘child pornography’. Justice J.B Pardiwala objected to the phrase’s use in official circumstances, stating that it should be referred to as ‘child sexual abuse and exploitative material’, or ‘CSEAM’. For years, High Courts struggled to determine whether mere possession of explicit movies involving minors was under the jurisdiction of the Protection of minors from Sexual Offences Act. Justice Pardiwala and former CJI Chandrachud explained that Section 15 of the POCSO Act made it clear that both possessing the material and failing to delete and destroy it, as well as possessing it with the purpose to distribute, were punishable crimes. Justice Pardiwala further determined that the safe harbour’ clause under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act of 2000, which shields intermediaries from accountability for third-party information, does not apply to ‘child pornography.’ Now, if intermediaries do not “expeditiously” remove such content when the government notifies them, their safe harbor status will expire. The decision has been difficult to digest for social media intermediaries, who have underlined the practical constraints of complying with it.