Top 25 Supreme Court Judgments of 2024

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made headlines in 2024 with some truly game-changing judgments, from introducing new constitutional rights to addressing politically sensitive issues.

But here's the thing: whether you are preparing for civil services, legal exams, college tests or just curious about cases that shaped the year, this blog is for you! 💡

From thousands of judgements, we have handpicked & compiled the landmark 25 judgments (summaries) with their flashcards to help you remember them better. Keep reading!

#CASE 1: State's power to regulate industrial alcohol

Case Title: State of UP vs. M/S. Lalta Prasad Vaish and Sons

Bench: CJI Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, Justices - Hrishikesh Roy, A. S. Oka, B. V. Nagarathna, J. B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, S. C. Sharma, A. G. Masih

Brief Facts:

1. This case revolves around whether the State Legislature has the authority to regulate ‘industrial alcohol’ under the term "intoxicating liquors" within Entry 8 of List II of the Constitution's 7th Schedule.

2. Traditionally, alcohol was split into potable (drinkable) and industrial types, with the latter sometimes diverted to produce illicit potable alcohol.

3. The 1989 judgement in Synthetics & Chemicals vs. State of UP held that "intoxicating liquor" only included potable alcohol, limiting State power over industrial alcohol.

4. However, when the Uttar Pradesh government imposed a licensing fee on the sale of denatured spirits (industrial alcohol made undrinkable), it was challenged, and the Allahabad High Court invalidated it, leading to this appeal.

Decision: The SC by an 8:1 majority, upheld the State's power to regulate industrial alcohol, overturning the Synthetics case. The bench stated that "intoxicating liquors" in Entry 8 include all forms of alcohol, even industrial, due to its potential misuse for intoxication. Justice Nagarathna dissented, asserting that industrial alcohol is non-potable by nature, falling outside the scope of "intoxicating liquors" and thus remaining under Union control.

Also read- Top 10 Constitutional Law Cases of 2024 (Yearly Roundup)

#CASE 2: Constitutional validity of S. 6A of Citizenship Act, 1955

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

Bench: CJI Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, Justices - Surya Kant, M.M. Sundresh, J. B. Pardiwala, Manoj Mishra

Brief Facts:

1. Following the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, Assam witnessed a surge in immigrants.

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

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

4. 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.

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

Decision: By a 4:1 majority, SC upheld the validity of Section 6A. Justice Surya Kant authored the majority opinion (for himself and Justices Sundresh and Mishra), supported by CJI's concurring opinion. Justice Pardiwala dissented, declaring Section 6A unconstitutional.

Read more- Supreme Court Upholds Section 6A of Citizenship Act (Assam Accord)

#CASE 3: Challenge to caste-based discrimination in prisons

Case Title: Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India

Bench: CJI Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, Justices - J. B. Pardiwala, Manoj Mishra

Brief Facts:

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Shantha argued that these provisions violated constitutional rights by discriminating based on caste.

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

Decision: SC declared the contested provisions in prison manuals unconstitutional, citing violations of several constitutional articles: Article 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23. The Court directed all states to amend their prison manuals to eliminate caste-based discrimination and to remove references to caste in prisoner registers. Additionally, the Union Government was instructed to amend the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023, within 3 months to incorporate these changes.

#CASE 4: Power of constitutional courts to grant bail for offences u/ statutes with stringent bail conditions

Case Title: V. Senthil Balaji vs. The Deputy Director

Bench: Justices - A. S. Oka, A. G. Masih

Brief Facts:

1. The case concerns the bail application of Mr. V. Senthil Balaji, a former Transport Minister in Tamil Nadu, accused of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

2. Allegations against Balaji, his secretary and his brother include collecting money from individuals in exchange for employment in the transport department.

3. Three FIRs were filed between 2015 and 2018, ultimately leading the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to pursue a PMLA case against Balaji on 29 July 2021.

4. He was arrested by the ED on 14 June 2023.

5. Section 45 of the PMLA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to ensure that the accused is unlikely to reoffend and that there is reasonable evidence of non-involvement in the crime.

6. After the Madras High Court denied his bail, Balaji approached the Supreme Court.

Decision: SC granted bail to Mr. V. Senthil Balaji with conditions, including bi-weekly attendance at the ED’s office in Chennai and surrender of his passport to the PMLA Court. Justice Oka authored the judgement, emphasising the role of constitutional courts in upholding an accused’s right to a timely trial and liberty.

#CASE 5: Whether viewing CESAM is punishable u/ POCSO Act, 2012

Case Title: Just Rights for Children Alliance vs. S. Harish

Bench: CJI Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice J. B. Pardiwala

Brief Facts:

1. The case involved allegations against S. Harish, who was accused of consuming Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CESAM).

2. Authorities were alerted in January 2020 about the respondent's alleged activity of downloading CESAM on his mobile phone.

3. Subsequently, an FIR was filed under Section 67B of the Information Technology (IT) Act (related to transmitting material depicting children in sexual acts) and Section 14(1) of the POCSO Act (punishment for using children for pornographic purposes).

4. The forensic analysis of the respondent's phone confirmed the presence of CESAM.

5. While initially charged under Section 14(1), the charge was later changed to Section 15(1) of the POCSO Act, which addresses possession of CESAM.

6. The respondent sought to quash the charges, and the Madras High Court dismissed the case, ruling that mere viewing or downloading of CESAM did not constitute an offence under the POCSO Act.

7. This decision was appealed by NGOs working against child exploitation.

Decision: SC overturned the High Court's decision, reinstating the criminal proceedings. It held that viewing CESAM constitutes an offence under the POCSO Act, especially if the material is not deleted, destroyed, or reported. Justice Pardiwala authored the judgement, emphasising that possession of CESAM, even without actual transmission, is punishable.

Read more- Watching Child Pornography is Crime u/ POCSO

#CASE 6: Arvind Kejriwal related Case Laws

(1) Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Subject: Legality of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal's Arrest and Entitlement to Bail in the CBI Case

Bench: Justices - Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan

Brief Facts:

1. Arvind Kejriwal, CM of Delhi, was charged by both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) over alleged irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-2022.

2. The CBI's First Information Report (FIR) alleged criminal conspiracy, falsification of accounts, and bribery-related offences.

3. Although Mr. Kejriwal was initially not Titled in either the CBI or ED cases, he was subsequently arrested by the ED on March 21, 2024, and later granted bail by the trial court.

4. However, the Delhi High Court stayed this bail order, keeping him in jail.

5. The CBI then sought and received permission from the trial court to arrest and question him while he was still in judicial custody.

6. Mr. Kejriwal challenged the legality of the CBI arrest in the Delhi High Court, which upheld the arrest.

7. He then appealed to the Supreme Court for bail and to address the legality of his CBI arrest.

Decision: SC granted bail to Mr. Kejriwal, with both judges agreeing he should be released but offering different views on the arrest’s legality. Justice Kant upheld the arrest as lawful, while Justice Bhuyan found the timing and reasoning behind it questionable. Bail conditions were applied, prohibiting Mr. Kejriwal from visiting his office or signing official files unless specifically required for approvals by the Lieutenant Governor.

(2) Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Subject: Legality of the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002

Bench: Justices - Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta

Brief Facts:

1. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) alleging that the Delhi Excise Policy 2021 caused financial benefits for specific individuals, resulting in government revenue loss.

2. As part of the ED’s investigation, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was summoned but did not comply, leading to his arrest on 21 March 2024.

3. He challenged the arrest, arguing that it was politically motivated and did not meet the requirements of Section 19 of the PMLA, which governs arrest procedures.

4. The Delhi High Court dismissed his plea, but he obtained interim bail from the Supreme Court on 10 May 2024, citing the Lok Sabha elections.

5. Mr. Kejriwal claimed that his arrest was unlawful, asserting that Section 19 requires the ED to show a “necessity to arrest.”

6. The ED countered, claiming that Mr. Kejriwal was a central figure in implementing the policy in question and allegedly used illicit funds to support the Aam Aadmi Party's (AAP) campaign in Goa.

Decision: SC granted interim bail to Mr. Kejriwal, directing the larger legal questions around his arrest’s validity to be reviewed by a larger bench. The Court set conditions for his interim bail: he must furnish a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with surety, refrain from visiting his office or signing official documents without permission, avoid comments on the case, and maintain distance from witnesses and related files. Justice Khanna authored the decision.

(3) Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Subject: Grant of Interim Bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal During Investigation

Bench: Justices - Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta

Brief Facts:

1. On 20 July 2022, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi reported financial irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy, prompting an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), with further inquiry by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED).

2. Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, was implicated in alleged criminal conspiracy charges related to bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The ED arrested Mr. Kejriwal on 21 March 2024, leading to his remand.

4. The trial court and Delhi High Court upheld the legality of this arrest.

5. Mr. Kejriwal appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging his arrest's legality and requested interim bail, considering the ongoing 18th Lok Sabha elections.

6. The Supreme Court decided to evaluate his plea for interim bail while his case was under judicial consideration.

Decision: The Supreme Court granted Mr. Kejriwal interim bail until 1 June 2024, subject to several conditions:

• Mr. Kejriwal must surrender to the authorities on 2 June 2024.

• He must furnish bail bonds amounting to ₹ 50,000.

• He shall refrain from visiting the Chief Minister's Office or the Delhi Secretariat.

• He may not sign official documents unless essential for obtaining the Lieutenant Governor's approval.

• He shall make no public comments regarding his involvement in the case.

• He may not interact with witnesses or access any official files linked to the case.

#CASE 7: Institutional safety measures for medical professionals after KOL's murder & rape case

Case Title: In Re: Alleged Rape and Murder Incident of a Trainee Doctor in R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata and Related Issues

Bench: CJI Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, Justices - J. B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra

Brief Facts:

1. On 9 August 2024, a postgraduate trainee doctor on a 36-hour shift at RG Kar Medical College in Kolkata was found murdered and allegedly raped inside a hospital seminar room.

2. The incident led to public outrage, with images of the deceased circulating on social media.

3. Initially, the hospital authorities informed the family that the death was a suicide; however, subsequent investigation led to an FIR for murder.

4. Concerns regarding the investigation's integrity prompted the Calcutta High Court to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

5. Following this, a mob vandalised the hospital’s emergency ward, resulting in a nationwide strike call by the Indian Medical Association to demand better safety for healthcare workers.

6. The incident raised pressing questions about the safety and working conditions of medical professionals, especially for those working late hours.

Decision: Recognizing the urgency of the issue, SC established a 9-member National Task Force to create a national protocol for the safety of doctors and medical staff. This Task Force was instructed to focus on 2 areas: (I) Preventing violence, particularly gender-based violence against medical staff, and (II) Developing enforceable safety protocols for dignified and secure working conditions for healthcare professionals. Additionally, the Court ordered the CBI and the State of West Bengal to submit status reports by August 22, 2024, on the investigation into the murder and the acts of vandalism, respectively.

Read more- Supreme Court Hearing on Kolkata Rape-Murder Case

#CASE 8: Taxation of mineral rights & royalty on mining leases, and its Retrospective effect

Case Title: Mineral Area Development Authority vs. M/S Steel Authority of India

Bench: CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices - Hrishikesh Roy, A.S. Oka, B.V. Nagarathna, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, S.C. Sharma, A.G. Masih

Brief Facts:

1. 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).

2. The legal questions included:

• 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.

• 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.

3. Factual Background:

• 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.

Decisions:

1. First Decision (25 July 2024): The Nine-Judge Bench, by an 8:1 majority, ruled that:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

2. Second Decision (14 August 2024): The Court held that the ruling in Mineral Area Development Authority vs. Steel Authority of India (2024) would apply retroactively. However, no past dues could be recovered for the period before 1 April 2005, acknowledging the financial burden on taxpayers and the legal uncertainty caused by prior conflicting judgments. Additionally, the Court allowed instalment payments over twelve years from April 1, 2026, and waived interest on dues before the July judgement.

Read more- Who Has Power to Impose Tax on Mining Activities: Centre or State?

#CASE 9: Whether Manish Sisodia is entitled to bail due to prolonged incarceration & delay in trial

Case Title: Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Bench: Justices - B. R. Gavai, K. V. Viswanathan

Brief Facts:

1. Manish Sisodia, former Deputy Chief Minister and Excise Minister of Delhi, was arrested by the CBI on February 26, 2023, and by the ED on March 9, 2023, in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22.

2. The CBI charged him with offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), while the ED accused him of money laundering under the PMLA.

3. The allegations centred on abuse of power to create a policy favouring certain distributors in exchange for bribes, amounting to approximately ₹100 crores, allegedly laundered for political purposes.

4. Sisodia's bail applications were rejected multiple times by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.

5. The latter, in October 2023, allowed him to reapply for bail if the trial was not concluded within 6-8 months.

6. As the trial was delayed, he approached the Supreme Court again for bail.

Decision: SC granted bail to Manish Sisodia, subject to conditions including furnishing a bail bond of ₹10,00,000 with two sureties, surrendering his passport, regular reporting to the investigating officers, and refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. Justice Gavai authored the judgement, acknowledging the prolonged delay in the trial process and Sisodia's right to liberty.

#CASE 10: Whether the LG of Delhi is bound by aid & advice of the Delhi Govt when nominating members to MCD

Case Title: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi

Bench: CJI Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, Justices - P. S. Narasimha, J. B. Pardiwala

Brief Facts:

1. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) comprises 260 members, of which 250 are elected, while 10 are nominated by the LG under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (DMC Act).

2. Article 239AA(4) of the Constitution mandates that the LG act based on the aid and advice of the Delhi Government’s Council of Ministers for matters within the legislative power of the Delhi Assembly.

3. However, an exception exists if the LG is required to act in discretion “by or under any law. "

4. In December 2022, after the Aam Aadmi Party won the MCD election, the LG nominated ten members without consulting the Delhi Government.

5. The Delhi Government challenged this nomination in the Supreme Court, arguing that the LG should have followed its advice.

Decision: SC ruled that the LG is not bound by the Delhi Government's aid and advice when nominating members to the MCD under Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the DMC Act. Justice Narasimha authored the judgement, explaining that the DMC Act, enacted by Parliament, specifically empowers the LG to act independently in this instance.

#CASE 11: States' power to sub-classify scheduled castes for reservation purposes

Case Title: The State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh

Bench: CJI Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, Justices - B. R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, B. M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, S. C. Sharma

Brief Facts:

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

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

5. 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.

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

Decision: The 7 Judge Bench, by a 6:1 majority, held that states have the constitutional power to sub-classify SCs for reservation purposes. CJI authored a plurality opinion, supported by separate concurrences from Justices Gavai, Nath, Mithal, Sharma, and Misra. Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented, ruling sub-classification impermissible.

Read more- Supreme Court Allows Sub-Categorisation in SC Reservation

#CASE 12: Whether State Bar Councils can charge higher enrollment fees than set by Advocates Act

Case Title: Gaurav Kumar vs. Union of India

Bench: CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Brief Facts:

1. The Advocates Act, 1961 prescribes the fees required for law graduates to enrol with State Bar Councils (SBCs), a prerequisite to practising law in India.

2. Section 24(1)(f) of the Act mandates an enrollment fee of ₹600 for general category candidates and ₹100 for Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidates, with an additional nominal fee to the Bar Council of India (BCI).

3. The petitioner challenged the significantly higher fees charged by SBCs across various states, which ranged from ₹10,000 to ₹50,000, claiming these fees are illegal and discriminatory.

4. SBCs argued that the additional fees covered miscellaneous costs, such as library funds, administrative fees, welfare funds, and identity card issuance.

Decision: SC ruled that SBCs cannot charge enrollment fees beyond the statutory limit set by Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. The Court held that charging excessive fees violates the constitutional right to equality (Article 14) and the right to practise any profession (Article 19(1)(g)). SBCs and the BCI cannot impose additional fees beyond the enrollment fees specified in the Act. This judgement is prospective, meaning SBCs are not required to refund excess fees collected before the ruling date.

Read more- Bar Council Enrolment Fees: ₹ 750/- Fixed

#CASE 13: Challenge against the approval of hybrid transgenic mustard DMH-11 for environmental release

Case Title: Gene Campaign vs. Union of India

Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol

Brief Facts:

1. Gene Campaign, an NGO, filed a petition challenging the Union Government’s decision to grant conditional approval for the environmental release of genetically modified mustard hybrid DMH-11.

2. They argued that the existing regulations under the 1989 Genetically Engineered Organisms Rules, framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, were inadequate to address the potential environmental and health risks posed by genetically modified (GM) crops.

3. Gene Campaign contended that this decision violated fundamental rights to health and a clean environment under Article 21 and India’s international commitments under the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB).

4. The NGO further noted that the approval process bypassed proper consultations and ignored the risks highlighted in prior studies.

5. In response, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) recommended the crop's conditional release with some safeguards, including post-release monitoring.

Decision: SC issued a split verdict, with Justice Nagarathna favouring the invalidation of the government’s approval for DMH-11, while Justice Karol upheld it, finding the approval process compliant with regulatory norms. Consequently, the case was referred to a larger Bench for final determination. Both Justices, however, directed the Union Government to formulate a National Policy on GM crops with input from all stakeholders, including state governments.

#CASE 14: Standard for initiating proceedings doubting an Individual's Nationality under Foreigners Act, 1946

Case Title: Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim vs. The State of Assam

Bench: Justices - Vikram Nath, Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Brief Facts:

1. In 2006, a case questioning the nationality of the Appellant, Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim, was registered with the Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari, Assam.

2. The suspicion originated from a lack of documentary evidence proving his entry into India before 1 January 1966, as requested by the Superintendent of Police.

3. The Tribunal ruled ex-parte (without the Appellant’s presence) in 2012 that the Appellant had not met his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, which places the responsibility on individuals to prove they are not foreigners when their nationality is challenged.

4. Following unsuccessful appeals to the Guwahati HC, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

5. The Supreme Court, in 2017, directed the Tribunal to reassess the case, including newly presented documents from the Appellant.

6. Despite this reassessment, the Tribunal continued to classify the Appellant as a foreigner, prompting the Supreme Court to review the findings again.

Decision: SC ruled in favour of the Appellant, affirming his Indian citizenship. The Court held that authorities must possess concrete material evidence to justify the initiation of nationality-doubting proceedings. In this case, no such evidence was provided.

#CASE 15: Bail conditions & right to privacy - Whether requiring an Accused to share location violates FRs

Case Title: Frank Vitus vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

Bench: Justices - A. S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan

Brief Facts:

1. The Appellant, Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national, was arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) for involvement in narcotics-related offences.

2. He was granted bail with conditions requiring him to (i) provide a Certificate of Assurance from the Nigerian High Commission guaranteeing his appearance in court, and (ii) drop a PIN on Google Maps for location tracking by the Investigating Officer.

3. The Appellant contested these conditions in the Supreme Court, arguing they were excessive and violated his right to privacy.

Decision: SC ruled in favour of the Appellant, determining that the conditions imposed were excessive and did not serve a legitimate purpose. The Court held that requiring the Appellant to drop a PIN on Google Maps was redundant as it did not facilitate real-time monitoring and could infringe on his right to privacy under Article 21. The Court also found the requirement to obtain a High Commission Certificate unnecessary. Instead, it suggested reasonable conditions like passport surrender and regular police reporting.

#CASE 16: Arrest & remand procedures under UAPA; Requirement to provide written grounds for arrest

Case Title: Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

Bench: Justices - B. R. Gavai, Sandeep Mehta

Brief Facts:

1. The Appellant, Prabir Purkayastha, Director at PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd., was arrested by the Delhi Police Special Cell under charges framed in an FIR involving provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”) and the Indian Penal Code.

2. The appellant was taken into custody on October 3, 2023, and his remand was approved for seven days by an Additional Sessions Judge the following day.

3. The Appellant challenged the legality of his arrest and remand, claiming that he had not been informed of the grounds for his arrest in writing, and that his legal representation during the remand process was inadequately handled.

4. The Delhi High Court rejected his challenge, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Decision: SC held that both the arrest and remand of the Appellant were invalid due to the failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing prior to the remand. With charges now framed against the Appellant, the Court ordered his release upon fulfilling bail conditions as determined by the trial court. The judgement was authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta.

#CASE 17: Determining when chargesheet is complete under CrPC, 1973

Case Title: Sharif Ahmad vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Secretary

Bench: Justices - Sanjiv Khanna, S. V. Bhatti

Brief Facts:

1. This case involved a property dispute where the appellants were accused of fraudulently agreeing to sell a property, accepting partial payment, and failing to register the property or return the payment.

2. An FIR was registered against them under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (breach of trust), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 406 and 506 IPC.

4. The appellants sought to quash the chargesheet, but the Allahabad High Court dismissed their plea.

5. They then approached the Supreme Court.

Decision: SC allowed the appeal and set aside the charge sheet and related criminal proceedings. The Court held that no trust was involved, so a breach of trust under Section 406 IPC could not be established, and no intent to alarm was present, making Section 506 IPC inapplicable. The Court also clarified that a chargesheet is considered complete when it contains sufficient material to allow a court to take cognizance and move towards trial under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

#CASE 18: Integrity & Reliability of EVMs

Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Election Commission of India

Bench: Justices- Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta

Brief Facts:

1. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a non-governmental organisation, challenged the reliability of EVMs in elections.

2. ADR argued that EVMs should either be replaced by paper ballots or should have 100% verification of votes through the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT).

3. In the current setup, VVPAT verification occurs for only five randomly selected polling stations per constituency.

4. ADR contended this was inadequate for ensuring vote accuracy and suggested that all VVPAT slips be checked against electronic tallies for accuracy and transparency.

Decision: SC declined ADR's demands for a return to paper ballots or full VVPAT verification, stating that the current EVM and VVPAT system offers sufficient transparency. The Court noted that the existing seven-second visibility of VVPAT slips allows for adequate vote verification by voters. Nonetheless, the Court issued additional directions to enhance EVM security and improve voter confidence in the electoral process. Justice Khanna authored the main opinion, with Justice Datta concurring in a separate opinion.

#CASE 19: Steps needed to protect the Great Indian Bustard from potential extinction

Case Title: M.K. Ranjitsinh vs. Union of India

Bench: CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices - J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra

Brief Facts:

1. The Great Indian Bustard, primarily found in the grasslands of Rajasthan and Gujarat, is critically endangered due to habitat loss and collisions with overhead transmission wires.

2. To protect the species, a writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, requesting conservation measures.

3. An interim SC order from April 2021 restricted overhead power lines across approximately 99,000 sq kms of bustard habitat, mandating future lines be installed underground and existing ones in priority areas be fitted with bird diverters.

4. In response, various ministries argued for amendments, highlighting challenges such as the potential impact on solar energy projects and India’s international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Paris Agreement.

5. These ministries cited difficulties in converting transmission lines underground, particularly in regions key to renewable energy development.

Decision: SC modified its April 2021 order, recognizing that a blanket prohibition on overhead transmission lines across 99,000 sq kms was impractical. The Court established an expert committee to evaluate alternatives for protecting the Great Indian Bustard, including the feasibility of using underground lines and bird diverters, with a report due by 31 July 2024. Chief Justice Chandrachud authored the judgement.

Read more- Right Against Climate Change is now Part of Fundamental Rights

#CASE 20: Challenge to exemptions from environmental clearances for roads & pipelines

Case Title: Noble M Paikada vs. Union of India

Bench: Justices - A.S. Oka, Sanjay Karol

Brief Facts:

1. In 2006, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) issued a notification requiring Environmental Clearances (ECs) for various construction projects under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

2. Over the years, modifications introduced certain exemptions.

3. A key amendment in the 2016 Notification exempted dredging and soil removal for maintenance work in dams and rivers, after considering public objections.

4. In 2020, the MoEF issued another notification (the “2020 Notification”) that expanded these exemptions to allow soil excavation for “linear projects” like roads and pipelines without prior ECs.

5. This amendment was issued without public consultation, unlike prior modifications, sparking concerns about unchecked environmental impact.

6. Noble M. Paikada, an environmental advocate, challenged this notification before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which suggested modifications rather than invalidating the provision.

7. Dissatisfied, Paikada appealed to the Supreme Court to strike down the exemption altogether.

Decision: SC held that issuing the 2020 Notification without public consultation and adequate safeguards was unconstitutional. The Court found the notification vague, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which encompasses the right to a clean environment. It struck down Item 6 of the 2020 Notification, authored by Justice Oka.

#CASE 21: Criticizing Art. 370 abrogation on WhatsApp Not an Offence

Case Title: Javed Ahmad Hajam vs. The State of Maharashtra

Bench: Justices - A. S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan

Brief Facts:

1. The Appellant, Javed Ahmad Hajam, a professor originally from Baramulla, Kashmir, posted two statuses on WhatsApp in response to the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution: (1) “August 5 – Black Day Jammu & Kashmir” and “14 August – Happy Independence Day Pakistan.” (2) “Article 370 was abrogated, we are not happy.”

2. These posts led to the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) against him under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalises promoting enmity between different groups on grounds such as religion, race, and place of birth.

3. The Appellant sought to quash the FIR through a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, which was denied.

4. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision: SC quashed the FIR filed against the Appellant, concluding that his right to dissent against government actions, as expressed through his WhatsApp status, was protected under the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Justice Oka authored the decision.

#CASE 22: Constitutional immunity of legislators from bribery-related prosecution

Case Title: Sita Soren vs. Union of India

Bench: CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices - A. S. Bopanna, M. M. Sundresh, P. S. Narasimha, J. B. Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, Manoj Misra

Brief Facts:

1. In 2012, the Election Commission halted Rajya Sabha elections in Jharkhand due to concerns over bribery.

2. An investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) revealed that Sita Soren, a legislator in the Jharkhand Assembly, had allegedly demanded significant sums from a candidate for proposing and voting for him.

3. Despite receiving the bribe, she did not cast her vote as promised.

4. Charged with bribery and conspiracy, Soren sought to dismiss these proceedings by arguing for immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution.

5. She cited the PV Narasimha Rao vs. State (1998) case, which had extended parliamentary immunity to acts connected with legislative votes or speeches, including acceptance of bribes to influence voting.

6. The Jharkhand High Court rejected Soren's immunity claim, and she appealed to the Supreme Court, prompting the matter’s referral to a larger 7 Judge Bench for re-evaluation of the P.V. Narasimha Rao precedent.

Decision: SC unanimously ruled that legislators are not immune under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) from prosecution for accepting bribes. The Seven-Judge Bench overturned the precedent set in P.V. Narasimha Rao, holding that parliamentary immunity does not cover acts of bribery.

The Court set forth a two-part test to determine immunity: (1) the act in question must relate to the collective functions of the legislature, and (2) it must be inherently linked to the legislator's duties. Since bribery does not fulfill these criteria, it falls outside the scope of legislative immunity. Chief Justice Chandrachud authored the majority judgement.

Read more- Supreme Court Ends Immunity For Lawmakers Taking Bribes-to-Vote

#CASE 23: Challenge to the Mayoral Elections of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation

Case Title: Kuldeep Kumar vs. UT Chandigarh

Bench: CJI Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, Justices - J. B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra

Brief Facts:

1. The Chandigarh Municipal Corporation was required to elect its Mayor in January 2024 under the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (“Punjab Act”).

2. Kuldeep Kumar, the candidate from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Indian National Congress (INC) alliance, contested against Manoj Sonkar from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

3. Anil Masih, a councillor, was appointed as the Presiding Officer for the election and it was agreed to video-record the voting process to ensure transparency.

4. During the counting of votes, eight ballots were deemed invalid by the Presiding Officer, who then declared Manoj Sonkar the elected Mayor with a 16–12 majority.

5. Kuldeep Kumar filed a petition with the Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging the election result on grounds of alleged malpractice by the Presiding Officer.

6. The High Court refused to stay the result, leading Kumar to approach the Supreme Court.

Decision: SC set aside the election result declared by the Presiding Officer, ruling that the eight ballots marked as “invalid” were in fact valid. The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court extraordinary powers to do complete justice, and declared Kuldeep Kumar the validly elected Mayor. Additionally, a show-cause notice was issued to the Presiding Officer, Anil Masih, to explain why proceedings should not be initiated against him under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for submitting false statements.

#CASE 24: Constitutional challenge to Electoral Bonds Scheme

Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India

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

Brief Facts:

1. The Electoral Bonds Scheme, introduced through the Finance Act, 2017, allowed anonymous donations to political parties via electoral bonds, where only the State Bank of India (SBI) knew the purchaser’s identity.

2. The scheme was challenged on the grounds that it violates the voters' right to information and encourages unaccounted political contributions, undermining fair elections.

3. Specifically, the amendments to the Representation of the People Act (RP Act), the Income Tax Act (IT Act), and the Companies Act allowed anonymous donations, unrestricted corporate funding, and political contributions from loss-making companies, raising concerns over transparency and accountability in political financing.

4. The Union argued that the Electoral Bonds Scheme aimed to reduce black money by incentivizing transparent donations through banking channels while preserving donor anonymity to prevent political retribution.

5. Petitioners claimed this anonymity in political funding obstructs voters' right to know the sources of party funding, undermining transparency and facilitating corruption.

Decision: SC held that the Electoral Bonds Scheme was unconstitutional and invalidated the amendments to the RP Act, Companies Act, and IT Act made through the Finance Act, 2017, that facilitated the scheme. It directed the SBI to disclose information about all electoral bonds sold and encashed from 2019 to date, with details of purchasers and recipient political parties, to the Election Commission of India (ECI) by 6 March 2024. The ECI must publish these details on its website by 13 March 2024.

#CASE 25: Challenge to Remission Orders for Convicts in Gang-Rape Case During Communal Riots

Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs. Union of India

Bench: Justices- B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan

Brief Facts:

1. During the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, Bilkis Yakub Rasool was subjected to gang rape, and her family members were murdered.

2. Initial investigations by the Gujarat police were closed without identifying the accused, but the Supreme Court intervened, transferring the case to the CBI, which led to the conviction of eleven accused individuals in 2008 for gang rape, murder, and rioting. 

3. These convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment by a Mumbai Trial Court, and their convictions were later upheld by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.

4. After serving 14 years, the convicts applied for remission under Sections 432 and 433A of the CrPC.

5. Though the Gujarat High Court had ruled that the State of Maharashtra should review these applications, the Supreme Court, in Radheshyam Shah vs. State of Gujarat (2022), directed Gujarat to consider them.

6. Gujarat subsequently granted remission to the eleven convicts, releasing them on August 10, 2022.

7. Bilkis Yakub Rasool and others challenged these remission orders before the Supreme Court, questioning their legality.

Decision: SC quashed the remission orders granted by the Gujarat government, holding them to be illegal and issued under jurisdictional overreach. The Court declared that Maharashtra, not Gujarat, had the jurisdiction to decide on remission applications for these convicts, and the directive in the Radheshyam Shah case was obtained through fraud. The Court ordered the released convicts to report back to prison within two weeks. Justice Nagarathna authored the judgement, which was unanimous.

#CASE (Bonus): Challenge to SEBI's investigation of Adani Group & request for SIT

Case Title: Vishal Tiwari vs. Union of India

Bench: CJI Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, Justices - J. B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra

Brief Facts:

1. On 24 January 2023, Hindenburg Research, a U.S.-based investment research firm, published a report accusing the Adani Group of violating securities regulations, manipulating stock prices, and failing to disclose critical financial information.

2. The report led to a substantial drop in the Adani Group's stock prices, resulting in significant losses for investors.

3. This prompted multiple petitions requesting the Supreme Court to protect investors and scrutinise the alleged regulatory violations.

4. In response, the Court, on 2 March 2023, ordered the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to investigate the claims and established an expert committee to review the regulatory measures.

5. Petitioners subsequently sought to overturn amendments to SEBI regulations on Foreign Portfolio Investments (2014) and Listing Obligations (2015) and requested a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to supervise the investigation.

6. SEBI's status report, submitted on 25 August 2023, indicated that 22 out of 24 investigations were complete by the date of the Court's decision.

Decision: SC ruled that judicial interference in SEBI's regulatory functions is limited. Finding no regulatory lapses by SEBI and no justification for cancelling amendments to SEBI regulations, the Court concluded that there was no basis to transfer the investigation to an SIT. Instead, the Court directed SEBI and the Union Government to review the expert committee's recommendations for enhancing investor protection measures.

Also, Check Out These Articles:

• Famous Cases of India
• Top 10 Landmark Constitutional Cases
• Landmark International Law Cases