NEW DELHI: This year, the Supreme Court delivered several landmark judgments, shaping the legal landscape and setting critical precedents for the future. From bail exceptions for election campaigns to rulings on contentious laws, the top court addressed a wide array of issues.
In a rare move, the top court granted the former Delhi chief minister interim bail for 21 days to campaign during elections.It also ruled on significant matters, including arrests under the UAPA, habeas corpus petitions, challenges to EVM integrity, and criminal proceedings over controversial WhatsApp statuses.
Key judgments included criminalising the possession of child pornography under the POCSO Act, upholding Section 6A of the Citizenship Act concerning the Assam Accord, and addressing transparency concerns over the Electoral Bonds Scheme. A historic decision saw the court rescind the remission granted to the Bilkis Bano convicts and approve Google Maps location sharing as a bail condition.
The court’s critique of arbitrary demolitions stood out, with a bench led by Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan condemning the practice as indicative of a “lawless, ruthless state of affairs.” Demolishing homes without due legal process, it noted, violates constitutional principles.
In the final months of 2024, the Supreme Court restricted fresh lawsuits under the Places of Worship Act, 1991, barring interim orders in ongoing cases, including surveys. With 18 lawsuits involving key religious sites like the Gyanvapi Mosque and Mathura’s Shahi Eidgah Masjid, the court’s stance could redefine religious disputes in India.
Lets have a detailed look at Supreme Court’s landmark Judgements of 2024:
Arrest of Delhi CM: Legal complexities and interim relief during election season
The Supreme Court on May 24 granted interim bail to then Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi Liquor Policy case, allowing him to remain out of custody until 1 June 2024. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, delivering a brief order, highlighted several key considerations. The court noted that Kejriwal had already spent considerable time in custody since March 2024. Justice Khanna remarked, “21 days here and there would not make a difference,” emphasising that a short extension of liberty would not disrupt the broader judicial process.
The bench stressed the importance of balancing investigative concerns with the fundamental rights of individuals, particularly the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It acknowledged the unique context of the upcoming Lok Sabha elections, suggesting that the decision was based on immediate circumstances rather than establishing a general precedent for election-related bail pleas.
While granting the relief, the court refrained from providing detailed reasoning, indicating that a comprehensive judgment would follow. This interim bail allows Kejriwal to actively participate in the 2024 Lok Sabha campaign while ensuring his return to judicial custody on 2 June 2024.
Child abuse: Supreme Court tightens legal framework for child pornography under POCSO Act
In a ruling on September 23, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala, declared that possession, viewing, or storage of child pornography constitutes an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Overturning a Madras High Court decision, the bench clarified that possession is independently punishable, reinforcing child protection laws.
The Court highlighted distinct offences under Section 15 of the POCSO Act. Subsection 15(1) penalises failure to delete or report such material, while 15(2) imposes up to three years’ imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute. Additionally, it expanded the scope of Section 67B of the IT Act to include possession and consumption, beyond publication or transmission.
Justice Pardiwala urged Parliament to replace “child pornography” with “child sexual exploitative and abuse material” (CSEAM) for greater accuracy. Social media accountability, sex education, and victim support were also emphasised. Reinstating criminal proceedings against S. Harish, the Court directed a fast-track trial, marking progress in combating child sexual exploitation.
Validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act: Supreme Court delivers split verdict
The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, in a 4:1 majority verdict, with Justice J.B. Pardiwala dissenting. Section 6A, introduced to implement the Assam Accord (1985), grants citizenship to Bangladeshi immigrants who entered Assam before 1 January 1966 and conditional voting rights to those arriving between 1 January 1966 and 24 March 1971, after a waiting period.
Petitioners argued that Section 6A undermines Assam’s cultural identity and violates Article 14’s equality guarantee. The Union government defended it as a legitimate legislative action under Article 11, aimed at preserving Assam’s multicultural character.
Chief Justice Chandrachud upheld the 24 March 1971 cut-off date, dismissing concerns about cultural dilution under Article 29. Justice Surya Kant affirmed Parliament’s authority to legislate on citizenship and rejected procedural challenges. Justice Pardiwala dissented, prospectively invalidating Section 6A(3), cautioning it could perpetuate migration without a defined limit.
Electoral Bonds Scheme: Supreme Court strikes down controversial mechanism
The Supreme Court on February 15 unanimously struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, declaring that it violated voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court ordered the immediate cessation of the sale of electoral bonds and directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose all electoral bond transactions since April 2019. It also mandated the Election Commission of India (ECI) to publish these details on its website by 13 March 2024.
Introduced in the 2017-18 Budget by Union finance minister Arun Jaitley, the Electoral Bonds Scheme aimed to enhance transparency in political funding by offering bearer instruments that ensured confidentiality for both donors and recipients. However, it faced widespread criticism from NGOs, political parties, and the Election Commission for undermining transparency and enabling foreign entities to contribute to political parties. The Supreme Court’s judgment came after extensive deliberations, with the Court ruling that the scheme infringed on the public’s right to information about political funding, further calling for greater transparency in electoral finance.
Bilkis Bano case: Withdrawal of remission granted to the convicts
The Supreme Court on January 8 led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, nullified the remission orders that prematurely released 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case and directed their return to prison within two weeks. The 251-page judgment addressed jurisdiction, maintainability, and fundamental rights, marking a significant stance on justice and victims’ rights.
The Court upheld Bilkis Bano’s petition under Article 32, asserting her rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It rejected the argument that she should have approached the Gujarat High Court under Article 226, highlighting the Supreme Court’s authority to intervene directly in such matters. The ruling referenced a prior petition by convict Radhe Shyam to validate Bano’s approach.
Under Section 432(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court clarified that Maharashtra, where the trial was held, had jurisdiction over remission decisions—not Gujarat. It criticised Gujarat’s actions as “complicit” and deemed the May 2022 Supreme Court order permitting the remission as per incuriam (legally invalid due to oversight).
Arrests under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: Challenges related to such arrests
The Supreme Court on May 15, 2024, ruled that the right to life and personal liberty is the most sacrosanct of fundamental rights. It directed that individuals arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) must be provided with a written copy of the grounds for their arrest. This enables them to consult a lawyer, challenge police custody remand, and seek bail.
The Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, applied principles from its earlier ruling in the Pankaj Bansal case (concerning the Prevention of Money Laundering Act) to arrests under the UAPA. Justice Mehta highlighted that there is no substantial difference between the relevant provisions of the two statutes. Rejecting the Union government’s objection, the Court stated that justice and fair play must be upheld equally under both laws.
Integrity of EVMs: Challenges to the reliability of Electronic Voting Machines
In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (2024 INSC 341), the Supreme Court upheld the existing system of using Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with limited Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) verification. The Court dismissed demands for 100% VVPAT verification, citing logistical challenges, delays, and risks of human error, and rejected calls to return to paper ballots, deeming them impractical for India’s large electorate.
The Court affirmed the adequacy of the current process, where VVPAT slips are verified for transparency, and introduced two directives: (1) securely sealing symbol loading units for 45 days post-election and (2) allowing candidates ranked second or third to request a 5% verification of EVM memory, with costs refunded if tampering is found. This decision reinforces the credibility of EVMs while enhancing safeguards for election transparency.
Habeas corpus petitions: Securing the release of relationship partners from familial custody
In Appellant v. Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority (2024), the Supreme Court ruled on a habeas corpus petition filed by the Appellant seeking the release of her same-sex partner, ‘X,’ allegedly confined by her parents. The Kerala High Court had previously ordered counselling for ‘X,’ which the Appellant contested as infringing upon ‘X’s’ autonomy.
The Supreme Court directed that ‘X’ be presented before the Family Court in Kollam to ascertain her wishes. Reports indicated that ‘X’ voluntarily expressed a desire to focus on her career and live with her parents, describing the Appellant as an “intimate friend” without intent for cohabitation or marriage. Respecting ‘X’s’ autonomy, the Court declined further intervention.
The judgment emphasised safeguarding LGBTQ+ rights, condemning coercive practices aimed at altering sexual orientation or gender identity. It also issued guidelines prioritising the detained person’s wishes, ensuring non-discrimination, police protection if necessary, and recognising chosen families as part of constitutional protections.
Guidelines to curb illegal bulldozer demolitions: Supreme Court issues procedural safeguards
In a landmark ruling in September 2024, the Supreme Court addressed the contentious issue of illegal bulldozer demolitions, particularly those targeting minority communities. The judgment was triggered by recent demolitions, including the home of a Muslim auto-rickshaw driver following an alleged stabbing incident involving his tenant’s son.
The Court declared such demolitions a violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to shelter, and criticised the executive’s role as both judge and jury, bypassing due process. It emphasised that these actions undermined the rule of law and could not be justified.
To prevent further illegal demolitions, the Court introduced key procedural guidelines:
- Authorities must issue written notices at least 15 days before demolition.
- District magistrates and collectors must be involved in the notice process.
- Affected parties are entitled to a personal hearing before a designated authority.
- Ground-level officers violating these procedures will face personal liability and financial penalties.
Acknowledging that over 150,000 homes had been destroyed in the past two years, predominantly affecting Muslim families, the Court’s ruling sought to curb executive overreach and reinforce the principles of fairness and justice.
Minority status of AMU: Aligarh Muslim University v Naresh Agarwal
The Supreme Court in a historic judgement overruled a 57-year-old precedent set by the five-judge bench in Azeez Basha v Union of India (1967), which had ruled that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) did not have minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution because it was established through a Union legislation, the AMU Act of 1920.
In a 4:3 majority decision, the Court held that institutions incorporated by a legal instrument can still claim minority status if the founder belonged to a minority community. The judgment effectively shifted the legal stance on minority educational institutions, clarifying that the mere involvement of the state in the establishment of an institution does not strip it of minority status if it was founded by members of a minority group.
The Court also laid down specific parameters to determine whether a religious or linguistic educational institution qualifies for minority status under Article 30. This was the first time in 75 years that the Supreme Court provided such detailed guidelines.
