Amidst controversies surrounding former Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, arising from his public statements particularly relating to seeking divine guidance for writing Ayodhya judgment, handling of the politically sensitive cases, Prime Minister Narendra Modi attending the Ganpati poojan at his residence and its video going viral, and so on, the Supreme Court by and large continued its march upholding the rule of law , and transparency in the actions of the government both at the Centre and in the States.

The judgments that were not perceived to be comforting to the government included the one of February 15, 2024, striking down of the electoral bonds scheme as “unconstitutional”; the January 8, 2024 judgment in Bilkis Bano case that quashed the Gujarat government’s decision to grant remission of sentence to 11 life convicts; March 4, 2024, judgment in PV Narasimha Rao case holding that the lawmakers can be prosecuted for accepting bribes for voting or making speech in the legislature, and on November 13, 2024, the Supreme Court came down heavily on use of bulldozers to raze the residential and commercial buildings belonging to (or residence of) an alleged accused of offence which infamously came to be known as ‘Bulldozer justice’.

Advertisement

Terming the bulldozer justice as “unconstitutional, arbitrary, high-handed and violative of the rule of law, abuse of power by the executive – authorities and violative of fundamental right to life and shelter guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution”, the Supreme Court had said that it is a “dream of every person, every family to have a shelter above their heads” and a house is an “embodiment of the collective hopes of a family or individuals’ stability and security”.

Taking a stern view of the way residential or commercial buildings were being razed and rubbled, merely because an alleged accused is residing there or own it, the top court in a poser had asked “An important question as to whether the executive should be permitted to take away the shelter of a family or families as a measure for infliction of penalty on a person who is accused in a crime under our constitutional scheme or not arises for consideration.”

Noting the pre-trial long incarceration being suffered by the alleged accused in the cases registered by the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement in particular, invoking stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the reluctance of the subordinate court and the High Courts across the country to grant bail, the Supreme Court reminded all the judicial authorities that “bail is a rule, and jail is an exception”.

Stating that “Liberty of the individual is always the rule and deprivation is the exception. Deprivation can be made only by the procedure established by the law which has to be valid and reasonable procedure.”, the Supreme Court by its August 28, 2024, judgment had said, “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” is only a paraphrasing of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”

Quashing the Gujarat government’s decision granting remission of sentence to 11 life-term convicts in Bilkis Bano case, the Supreme Court had severely indicted the Gujarat government for usurping the jurisdiction of Maharashtra government in granting remission of sentence and acting in “tandem” and “complicity” with one of the convicts.

Bilkis Bano was gangraped and nine members of her family including her three-year old daughter were killed by the convicts during 2002 Gujarat riots.

In the late Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao case judgment, while holding that the lawmakers do not enjoy immunity of privileges from prosecution in the case of accepting bribery for casting vote or making speech in the legislature – both in Parliament and the State assemblies – the Supreme Court had reversed the 1998 majority judgment by a five-judge Constitution bench which had granted immunity from prosecution to a member of the legislature for allegedly casting a vote or speaking in the legislature for a monetary consideration.

Quashing the anonymous and opaque electoral bond scheme as “unconstitutional and arbitrary” and violative of Article 10(1)(a), the Supreme court had adverted to the legitimate possibility that financial contribution to a political party would lead to “quid pro quo” arrangements because of the close nexus between money and politics.

However, it did not accept the plea for a probe by a Special Investigation Team into the alleged quid pro quo involving donations by big corporates through the electoral bonds in exchange for government contracts, policy tweaking or investigation agencies — CBI, ED and Income Tax authorities — developing inertia and going silent on their probes.

The Supreme Court had, in the past, ordered the probe into the grant of 2G licences and the allocation of coal blocks.

In the social domain, for an evenly spread of the benefits of reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Supreme Court on August 1, 2024, ruled that Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous group and the sub-classification amongst them is permissible for extending the benefits of the affirmative action to the most deprived sections amongst them.

In another important step to end caste-based discrimination in prisons, the Supreme Court on October 13, banned caste-based discrimination in prisons including allocation of work, and directed the deletion of caste columns in jail registers of undertrials and convicts.

Imploring sensitivity in the use of terminologies relating to child abuse, the top court by its September 23, 2024, judgment suggested Parliament to “seriously consider” amending the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) for substituting the word ‘child pornography’ with “child sexual exploitative and abuse material” (CSEAM) so that it could reflect more accurately on the reality of such offences.

It expanded the scope of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, ruling that watching and storage of child pornography material on the digital devices can be an offence under the POCSO Act if the person concerned had the intention to make some gain or advantage from the same.

Putting to rest the repeatedly resurfacing controversy involving the minority character of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), the Supreme Court laid down the law /parameters to determine the minority character of an institution claiming a minority character. It overturned the 1967 five-judge Constitution bench judgment in Azeez Basha case that had held that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute.

Holding that an institution establishment by statute doesn’t negate its minority status, a 7-judge bench by a majority of 4:3 on November 8, 2024, ruled that “the incorporation of the University would not ipso facto lead to surrendering of the minority character of the institution. The circumstances surrounding the conversion of a teaching college to a teaching university must be viewed to identify if the minority character of the institution was surrendered upon the conversion. The Court may on a holistic reading of the statutory provisions relating to the administrative set-up of the educational institution deduce if the minority character or the purpose of establishment was relinquished upon incorporation”.

The Supreme Court ended 2024 with a long-awaited hearing on the 1991 Places of Worship Act on December 12, and passing of an interim order restraining all the courts across the country from passing any effective interim or final order including that of the surveys in pending suits staking a claim over the existing religious structures.

But it was not before pleas relating to Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi and Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura were entertained and the violence that had erupted in the wake of the survey of the Sambhal Mosque had taken place.

The top court in its interim order said, “As the matter is sub judice before this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that, though fresh suits may be filed, no suits would be registered and no proceedings shall be undertaken therein till further orders of this Court.”

“Further, in the pending suits, no Court will pass any effective interim orders or final orders, including orders directing surveys, etc., till the next date of hearing/further orders of this Court.”

The Supreme Court enters 2025 with many feathers in its cap, there are matters, waiting for years to be heard that include a challenge to the 2019 Citizenship (Amendment) Act granting Indian citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Buddhists, Jains, who came to India on or before December 31, 2014, to escape religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.

This law faced huge and long protests at Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh. This protest had to be ended because of the outbreak of the Carona pandemic.

The other important matter relates to two issues arising in the review of its July 27, 2022, judgment upholding the stringent provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The two aspects that have been flagged to be looked into includes denial of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) by the ED while arresting an accused in an alleged money laundering case and the presumption of innocence of the accused.

These two issues were framed on August 25, 2022, by a bench headed by then Chief Justice N V Ramana.