Top 10 Constitutional Law Cases of 2024 (Yearly Roundup)

Electoral bond schemes, climate rights, prison manuals and more! 2024 has been an action-packed year at the Supreme Court, with a 12+ constitutional bench tackling some of the most pressing issues. 🫡

From overturning a 26-year-old judgement (PV Narasimha Rao (1998)) to granting reservations for the more backward classes (Davinder Singh (2024)), the Apex Court has been at the forefront of changing India's constitutional landscape.

In this blog, we feature 10 significant cases (summaries) on constitutional law from 2024 with brief factual background, relevant articles and verdicts. Plus, we've included flashcards to help you remember these landmark cases better. Here's your comprehensive yearly wrap-up for 2024! 💯

#Case10: Habeas corpus to release partner from parents

Title: Devu G Nair v. State of Kerala

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Jamshed B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra 

Key Issue: Whether the Appellant's habeas corpus petition seeking the release of her partner in a same-sex relationship allowed?

Facts: 

• The Appellant and ‘X’ were women in a same-sex relationship. The Appellant alleged that ‘X’ was unlawfully confined by her parents to separate them and filed a habeas corpus plea in the Kerala High Court.  
• The High Court directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) Secretary to visit ‘X’s residence, record her statements, and order her to attend counselling sessions.  
• The Appellant challenged these orders before the Supreme Court, arguing that recording statements while ‘X’ was in her parents' custody was ineffective and that mandatory counselling violated her autonomy.  
• The Supreme Court instructed ‘X’s parents to produce her before the family Court in Kollam and arranged an interview with e-Committee member of the Supreme Court to ascertain ‘X's wishes. 
• Reports submitted indicated that ‘X’ freely expressed her wish to focus on her career and voluntarily live with her parents. She described the Appellant as an "intimate friend" but stated she did not wish to marry or live with her then.  

Judgment: 
(I) Respect identity: The 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld Ms Nair's report, emphasizing that High Courts must respect individuals' sexual orientation and identity without imposing changes through therapy. The judgment affirmed the constitutional rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community.

(II) Habeas corpus guides: The Court established guidelines prioritizing habeas corpus petitions to ensure: Privacy, safety, and non-discrimination for individuals in personal relationships.
(a) Prompt release of detained individuals and immediate police protection for those at risk.
(b) The Court stressed that counselling should not undermine a person's will or attempt to change their sexual orientation, emphasizing the importance of protecting the fundamental rights of LGBTQ+ individuals.

To read the full judgment, click here!

#Case9: Parameters to identify minority educational institution 

Title: Aligarh Muslim University through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v. Naresh Agarwal C.A. 

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra, Satish Chandra Sharma.

Issues:
A. Can a university, established and governed by a statute (like the AMU Act, 1920), claim minority status?
B. Was the 1967 judgment in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India correct in denying AMU's minority status?

Facts: 

• Sir Syed Ahmed Khan founded the Mohammadan Anglo Oriental College (MAO) in Aligarh, which later became Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) through the AMU Act, incorporating it as a university.\
• Article 30(1) of the Constitution grants minorities the right to establish and manage educational institutions.
• In Azeez Basha case, the Supreme Court ruled that AMU was not a minority institution because it was established by statute, not by a minority community.
• The correctness of Azeez Basha was referred to a 7-Judge Bench in the case Anjuman-e-Rahmaniya v. District Inspector of Schools.
• The AMU Act was amended to define AMU as an institution "established by the Muslims of India" for their educational and cultural advancement.
• The Allahabad High Court declared AMU's 50% reservation policy for Muslim students unconstitutional, ruling that AMU was not a minority institution even after the 1981 Amendment.
• In 2019, the Supreme Court referred the issue of Azeez Basha to a 7-Judge Bench after observing its continued relevance in the case.

Judgment:
(I) Overruled Azeez Baasha: The majority (4:3) in the present case overruled the S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India (1967) decision, which had held that AMU, being established by a statute, could not claim minority status.

(II) Minority status: The majority held that an institution can claim minority status if it was established by a minority, even if it was incorporated through a statute. A regular bench will decide whether AMU is a minority institution.

(III) The Court clarified that the minority status of an institution is not affected by:
(a) Creation through a statute.
(b) Date of establishment (before or after the Constitution came into force in 1950).
(c) Temporary non-minority administration.
(d) Art 30(1): It was interpreted to protect institutions established by minorities before the Constitution's enactment.

To read the full judgment, click here!

#Case8: Constitutional validity of S. 6A of Citizenship Act

Title: In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra

Key Issues: Whether Section 6A is constitutionally valid, i.e., violates Articles 11 (power to regulate citizenship), 14 (equality), 29 (protection of minority interests), 326 (right to vote), and 355 (duty of Union to protect states)?

Facts:

• After the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, Assam witnessed a surge in immigrants.

• Responding to local protests, the Union Government signed the Assam Accord on 15 August 1985, granting specific citizenship provisions to immigrants under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.

• This section provided citizenship to immigrants of Indian origin arriving before 1 January 1966, while those arriving between 1 January 1966 and 24 March 1971 could obtain citizenship subject to certain conditions.

• This case questioned the validity of Section 6A under Articles 11, 14, 29, 326, and 355 of the Constitution, especially regarding its effect on Assam's demographics and indigenous identity.

• The case was referred to a Constitution Bench in 2014 due to its complex constitutional implications.

Judgment:

(I) Majority Opinion (4:1):
(a) Section 6A is constitutionally valid.
(b) Parliament has the authority under Article 11 to legislate on citizenship matters.
(c) Assam’s unique situation due to its location and history justifies treating it differently under Article 1
(d) Migration from Bangladesh cannot be considered "external aggression" under Article 355.

(II) Dissenting Opinion (Justice Pardiwala):
(a) Section 6A is unconstitutional as it lacks clear time limits for identifying migrants and places an undue burden on the State to prove citizenship.
(b) The provision undermines the rights of indigenous Assamese people, allowing migrants to stay indefinitely.

To read the full judgment, click here!

#Case7: Protection of the GIB (bird) & new climate right

Title: M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India 

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Jamshed B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra

Key Issues:
A. What steps should be taken to protect the GIB from extinction?
B. Whether the restriction on overhead transmission lines over 99,000 sq km needs reconsideration.
C. Should an expert committee be established to monitor and prepare data to protect the GIB?

Facts: 

• The GIB, found primarily in Rajasthan and Gujarat, has been classified as critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Collisions with overhead transmission lines were identified as a significant cause of mortality.
• In April 2021, the Supreme Court ordered the transition of overhead transmission lines to underground cables in the bird's habitat (99,000 sq km), and mandated using bird diverters where undergrounding was impossible. 
• Ministries involved in climate and energy policy sought amendments to this order, citing technical and financial challenges and its potential impact on solar energy development, which is crucial for India's climate goals.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court overturned its earlier interim order, recognising that a blanket restriction on overhead transmission lines over such a large area was not feasible. The Court emphasized the need to balance the conservation of the GIB with India's broader environmental goals, particularly promoting renewable energy.

(I) India's International Commitments: The Court recognized India's international obligations, like the Paris Agreement, stressing the importance of renewable energy to meet climate goals.

(II) Feasibility of Undergrounding Power Lines: The Court acknowledged the impracticality of converting all overhead lines to underground cables due to high costs, technical issues, and safety risks, especially for lines above 60 kV. It noted the lack of provision in the Electricity Act for land acquisition for underground cables and recommended prioritizing bird diverters where undergrounding isn’t feasible.

(III) Right to a Healthy Environment: The Court affirmed that a healthy environment is a constitutional right under Article 21, highlighting the need for India to address climate change challenges through biodiversity conservation and renewable energy.

(IV) Expert Committee: An expert committee was appointed to assess undergrounding feasibility and monitor bird diverters, with a report due by 31 July 2024.

To read the full judgment, click here!

#Case6: 100% vote verifications through VVPATs 

Title: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India

Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta.

Key Issues:
A. Whether EVMs ensure the integrity and security of elections.
B. Is 100% VVPAT verification necessary to ensure election transparency?

Facts: 

• ADR raised concerns over the reliability and security of EVMs, arguing that the current system lacked sufficient transparency. 

• They demanded either the discontinuation of EVMs or the counting of 100% VVPAT slips alongside electronic votes to cross-check the accuracy. They also suggested giving VVPAT slips to voters for further verification.

• EVMs are linked to VVPAT machines, which generate a printed slip for voters to verify before the slip is stored in a sealed box. 

• Currently, 5 randomly selected polling stations per constituency undergo VVPAT verification. ADR argued that this level of verification was insufficient.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court rejected ADR's demands for a return to paper ballots or 100% VVPAT slip verification. The Court held that the current system of VVPAT verification in 5 randomly chosen polling stations per constituency was sufficient to ensure transparency. 

Justice Khanna explained the EVM process, noting the extensive safeguards in place, including mock polling, candidate presence during EVM sealing, and security of EVMs in strong rooms.

Impractical: The Court reasoned that while voter confidence is crucial, increasing VVPAT verification to 100% would lead to unnecessary delays and errors. The Court also noted the impracticality of returning to paper ballots, citing the large voter base and the advantages of EVMs, such as preventing booth capture and ensuring efficiency.

To read the full judgment, click here!

#Case5: States' power to sub-classify scheduled castes for reservation

Title: The State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh 

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Bhushan R. Gavai, Bela M. Trivedi, Vikram Nath, Manoj Misra, Pankaj Mithal, Satish C. Sharma

Key Issues:
A. Is the sub-classification of SCs for providing reservation permissible under the Constitution?
B. Whether states have the power under Articles 15 and 16 to create sub-classifications within SCs.

Facts: 

• Under Article 341 of the Constitution, the President is empowered to declare specific castes as Scheduled Castes (SCs), with changes only permissible by Parliament.

• Punjab's Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act 2006 (Punjab Act) included a provision reserving 50% of SC-reserved vacancies for certain sub-castes within SCs.

• In E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court previously held that states could not sub-classify SCs, as they formed a homogeneous group, and only Parliament could modify the SC list.

• The Punjab High Court declared Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act, permitting sub-classification, unconstitutional based on Chinnaiah ruling.

• The Punjab Government challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, leading to a referral to a larger Bench, given the need to re-evaluate Chinnaiah.

• A 7-Judge Bench was formed to consider if sub-classifying SCs for reservation purposes aligns with constitutional principles.

Judgment: 
The Supreme Court, in a 6:1 majority decision, held that states are permitted to sub-classify SCs for reservation purposes. The Court ruled that:
(I) Sub-classification under Indra Sawhney: The Court said that the Indra Sawhney case, which allowed sub-classification for OBCs, also applies to SCs, ensuring better representation for different groups within SCs.

(II) SCs are not a homogeneous class: The Court clarified that SCs are not all the same and that internal differences exist. Sub-classification can help address these differences.

(III) State's power under Articles 15 and 16: States can make sub-classifications within SCs, as long as they do not exclude any group from the Presidential list

(IV) Judicial review: Any sub-classification by states must be based on empirical data showing inadequate representation of a particular group within the SC category and can be reviewed by the Court.

(V) Dissent by Justice Bela M. Trivedi: Justice Trivedi disagreed, stating that once castes are included in the SC list under Article 341, they form a homogeneous class. She argued that sub-classifying SCs would alter the Presidential list, which only Parliament can change. She also concluded that states do not have the authority to create such sub-classifications.

To read the full judgment, click here!

#Case4: Power to tax mineral rights & its retrospective effect

Title: Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India 

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S. Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish C. Sharma, Augustine G. Masih

Key Issues:
A. Taxation of Mineral Rights: The first case, delivered on 25 July 2024, questioned if states possess the power to tax mineral rights and whether royalty on mining leases is considered a tax.
B. Prospective Application: Following this ruling, the second case on 14 August 2024, addressed whether the 25 July decision should apply retroactively, impacting prior taxes, or prospectively.

Facts: The cases revolved around constitutional powers regarding taxation of mineral rights and royalty payments under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act).

• First Case: The power division between the Union and the States over mineral rights taxation, according to the Constitution's Seventh Schedule, was a core issue.
• Entry 50 of List II (State List) grants states the power to tax mineral rights, but subject to limitations set by Parliament. Meanwhile, Entry 54 of List I (Union List) allows Parliament to legislate on mineral development, limiting state power if in the public interest.
• The issue arose from conflicting judgments in India Cement Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1989), which deemed royalties a tax, and Kesoram Industries (2004), which held that royalty was not a tax.
• Second Case: After the July decision, corporate taxpayers argued the ruling should apply prospectively, meaning they would not owe taxes retroactively based on this clarification.

Judgment:

(I) 1st Decision (25 July 2024): The 9-Judge Bench, by an 8:1 majority, ruled that:
(a) Royalty is not a tax: Royalty is considered a payment for the extraction right rather than a tax, as it arises from a contractual relationship rather than compulsory imposition.
(b) States can tax mineral rights: States possess the authority under Entry 50 of List II to tax mineral rights, and this power is not limited by the MMDR Act. However, Parliament can impose limitations if necessary for mineral development.
(c) Parliamentary Limitations: Parliament's authority includes the ability to regulate or prohibit state taxation on mineral rights if required to maintain mineral development, but the MMDR Act does not limit the states' power to tax mineral rights in its current form.
(d) Land Taxation Including Mineral Bearing Land: The power of states to tax land (Entry 49 of List II) includes mineral-bearing lands, and mineral produce can be used as a measure of tax.
(e) Dissenting Opinion: Justice Nagarathna dissented, arguing that royalty under Section 9 of the MMDR Act functions as a tax, and that the MMDR Act inherently limits the states' power to tax mineral rights.

(II) 2nd Decision (14 August 2024): 
(a) No Prospective Application: The Court ruled that prospective application was unnecessary since the Mines and Minerals decision upheld the states' taxation powers rather than invalidating a previously valid law. 
(b) Period for Recovery: The Court recognized that after the Kesoram Industries decision 2005, states had enacted laws to tax mineral-bearing lands based on that ruling. Therefore, the Court allowed the recovery of tax dues from 1 April 2005 onwards, as this was when the legal framework supporting the states' taxation power became clear.

To read the full judgment, click here- 1st Case, 2nd Case. 

#Case3: Constitutional validity of the Electoral Bond Scheme

Title: The Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India 

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Jamshed B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Bhushan R. Gavai, Sanjiv Khanna

Key Issues: 
A. Whether the non-disclosure of funding to political parties under the Electoral Bond Scheme violates voters' right to information.
B. Whether unlimited corporate funding to political parties interferes with free and fair elections and equality.

Facts:

• The Electoral Bond Scheme, introduced by the government in 2018, allowed individuals and corporate entities to donate anonymously to political parties. 

• The amendments to the Representation of the People Act, Companies Act, and IT Act allowed parties and companies to avoid disclosing contributions made through electoral bonds and removed the cap on corporate donations. 

• Petitioners argued that this undermined voters' right to information and allowed corporations to influence political processes, particularly when even loss-making companies could donate. 

• The Union of India defended the Scheme to ensure clean money in elections and protect donors' privacy.

Judgment:
(I) Unconstitutional: The Supreme Court declared the Electoral Bond Scheme and the amendments through the Finance Act, 2017 unconstitutional. It held that the Scheme violated voters' right to information, essential for making informed electoral choices under Article 19(1)(a). 

(II) Proportionality test: The Court emphasized that finance plays a crucial role in elections, and information about donations is key to understanding possible influences on policy-making. The Court applied the proportionality test and found that the Scheme did not balance the voters' right to information with donors' privacy, as it tilted heavily toward donor anonymity, undermining public interest.

(III) Corporate Donations: The Court also struck down the amendment to Section 182 of the Companies Act, which allowed unlimited corporate donations, including from loss-making companies. It held that this amendment was arbitrary and violated Article 14, as it allowed disproportionate corporate influence on elections, thus distorting free and fair elections.

(IV) Direction to SBI: The Court directed the State Bank of India to submit details of electoral bonds purchased since April 2019 to the Election Commission of India (ECI) and ordered the ECI to publish this information on its website, enhancing public transparency.

To read the full judgment, click here!

#Case2: Challenge to caste-based discrimination in prisons

Title: Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra 

​​Issues: Whether caste-based discrimination in prisons by various state prison manuals, is violative of constitutional rights?

Facts: 

• Sukanya Shantha, a journalist, authored an article detailing caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons.

• The article led to her filing a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to challenge various provisions in state prison manuals that promoted caste-based segregation and discrimination.

• Some provisions included rules such as assigning certain jobs (e.g., sweeping) to prisoners from specific castes and appointing “suitable” castes for cooking or guard duties.

• She argued that these provisions violated constitutional rights by discriminating based on caste.

• Several states, including Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, and others, presented their cases before the Supreme Court.

Judgment:

​​A Supreme Court Bench ruled that provisions in the Prison Manual violated Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. The Court directed states to update their prison manuals within three months and submit a status report.

(I) Unconstitutionality of Caste-Based Classification: The Court declared caste-based differentiation in Prison Manuals unconstitutional. Such classifications lack rationality and perpetuate institutional discrimination, violating Articles 14 and 15(1). Assigning “menial” tasks to marginalized castes reinforces labor divisions and fails the test of reasonable classification.  

(II) Untouchability in Prison Practices: Assigning “degrading or menial” work based on caste and restricting cooking duties to specific castes were deemed unconstitutional under Article 17, as they upheld untouchability.  

(III) Forced Labor Under Article 23: Forcing marginalized caste inmates to perform specific tasks without choice was ruled as “forced labor,” stripping them of liberty and reinforcing caste constraints.  

(IV) Reform in Model Prisons Act, 2023: The Court recommended provisions prohibiting caste discrimination in prisons and flagged the vague definition of “habitual offender," urging States to reconsider habitual offender laws. 

(V) Directives to Union and State Governments: 
(a) Delete caste references from prison registers.  
(b) Revise Prison Manuals and Rules within 3 months to eliminate caste-based discrimination. 
(c) Update the Model Prison Manual 2016 and Model Prisons Act, 2023, to reflect this judgment.  
(d) Conduct regular prison inspections and submit compliance reports to the Supreme Court.  

To read the full judgment, click here!

#Case1: Legislative immunity for MPs/MLAs facing bribery charges

Title: Sita Soren v. Union of India 

Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Ajjikuttira S. Bopanna, M. M. Sundresh, Pamidighantam S. Narasimha, Jamshed B. Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, Manoj Misra

Key Issues: Does a legislator enjoy immunity from prosecution under Articles 105(2) or 194(2) for accepting bribes to vote in Parliament or a State Legislative Assembly?

Facts: 

• In 2012, Sita Soren was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹ 50 lacks for proposing a candidate's nomination for the Rajya Sabha elections and an additional ₹ 1 crore for voting in his favor. 

• Although she allegedly accepted the bribe, she voted for a different candidate.

• Soren argued that her actions were protected under the immunity provisions of Articles 105(2) and 194(2). 

• The Jharkhand High Court rejected her plea, and the case was referred to the Supreme Court for a decision on whether the P.V. Narasimha Rao ruling extended immunity to legislators involved in bribery.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court unanimously held that legislators do not enjoy immunity under Articles 105(2) or 194(2) for accepting bribes. The Court overturned the decision in P.V. Narasimha Rao, ruling that parliamentary immunity applies only to legitimate legislative functions directly related to votes and speeches within the House.

(I) Parliamentary Privileges: The Court emphasized that parliamentary privileges protect the integrity of legislative debate and decision-making, not to shield legislators from criminal prosecution for acts like bribery.

(II) Bribery Not Protected: The Court held that accepting bribes is a criminal act unrelated to the proper functioning of a legislator's duties. Immunity does not extend to actions that undermine democracy, such as bribery.

(III) Stage of Offence: The Court clarified that bribery is complete when a bribe is accepted, regardless of whether the recipient carries out the promised act. Thus, even though Sita Soren voted for a different candidate, accepting the bribe was sufficient to establish criminal liability.

To read the complete judgement, click here!

Author's Remark

That wraps up our list. The Supreme Court's 75th anniversary has truly been a milestone, not just in terms of landmark judgments but also through its efforts to celebrate the rich history of India's legal system. ⚖️

From unveiling the new Lady Justice statue to releasing the 75-year commemorative coin and stamp and inauguration of the National Judicial Museum and Archive, the Supreme Court has continued to demonstrate its super important role in shaping India.

Don't forget to check out our other blogs for such easy-to-understand compilations, legal topics, and more insights.

We'd love to hear from you! Share your thoughts in the comments—what other judgments do you think should have made it to this list? 

Also, Check Out These Articles:

• Top 25 Supreme Court Judgments of 2024
• CLAT PG 2025: Complete Question Paper Analysis
• Top 10 Legal Current Affairs: September 2024
• What is Amendment to the Constitution? Full list of Amendments