The year 2024 has seen a series of landmark rulings by the Supreme Court of India, addressing critical issues in law, justice, and governance. These judgements span a variety of topics, from child rights and political transparency to financial regulations and constitutional interpretations. In this article, we highlight the top 10 judgements of 2024, analyzing their implications for law and society.
- JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE v. S. HARISH (2024 INSC 716)
The case involved a coalition of NGOs challenging a quashing order by the Madras High Court that nullified criminal proceedings against S. Harish for offenses related to child pornography. The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized that possession of child pornography with intent is punishable, even if there is no active transmission. This judgment clarifies operational guidelines for law enforcement and the judiciary, reinforcing the responsibility of intermediaries in reporting such offenses. The decision promotes greater vigilance against child exploitation in the digital age.
- Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr. (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2842 OF 2024)
This case involved the issue of whether a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, in addition to the remedies available under the 1986 Act. The Supreme Court ruled that both legal provisions apply simultaneously, ensuring that a divorced Muslim woman can secure financial support beyond the iddat period, reinforcing her right to long-term financial stability.
- Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra
The Supreme Court, in a 7:2 decision, ruled that not all private properties are “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution. The case addressed the conflict between private property rights and the state’s obligation to distribute resources for the common good. The judgment clarified the scope of state intervention in the distribution of resources, ensuring a balance between individual rights and public welfare.
- Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
This case challenged the Electoral Bond Scheme, which allowed anonymous donations to political parties. The Supreme Court declared the scheme unconstitutional, emphasizing the need for transparency in political funding. The judgment directed the Election Commission to disclose donor details, thereby enhancing transparency and safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process.
- The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Devendra Singh & Ors. (2024)
The issue in this case was the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) for reservations in public employment and education. The Supreme Court upheld the practice of intra-group reservations within the SC category, allowing states to address disparities within the community. This decision aims to ensure that the most disadvantaged sections of the SC community benefit from affirmative action.
- Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2024)
Manish Sisodia, the former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, was arrested in connection with alleged irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sisodia’s right to a speedy trial, emphasizing the importance of timely justice under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Despite the high-profile nature of the case, the Court highlighted the need for procedural fairness and adherence to constitutional rights.
- Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024)
This case focused on the validity of reassessment notices issued under the Income Tax Act after the enactment of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The Supreme Court ruled that reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021, must comply with the new provisions of the Income Tax Act. The judgment ensured clarity in the application of tax laws, promoting consistency in tax administration.
- Aligarh Muslim University vs. Naresh Agarwal (2024)
The Supreme Court ruled on whether Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) qualifies as a minority institution under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court determined that an institution must be both established and administered by a minority community to claim minority status. This decision impacts AMU’s reservation policies and has broader implications for similar institutions across the country.
- Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs. Union of India (November 2024)
Bilkis Yakub Rasool, a victim of the 2002 Gujarat riots, challenged the remission and early release of convicts involved in her gangrape and murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the State of Gujarat did not have the jurisdiction to grant remission, as the trial had taken place in Maharashtra. The Court quashed the remission order, emphasizing the importance of jurisdictional competence and accountability in matters of justice.
- Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif (2024)
In this case, Kashif was arrested for trafficking narcotic substances, but the issue at hand was the procedural non-compliance with Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The Supreme Court ruled that such lapses were irregularities rather than grounds for nullifying the prosecution’s case. The decision upheld stringent bail conditions for cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance in drug-related offenses.
Editor’s Note
The judgements of 2024 reflect the Supreme Court’s active role in shaping the legal landscape of India. From safeguarding children’s rights and ensuring political transparency to affirming the rights of individuals in the face of systemic challenges, these rulings have far-reaching implications for both the legal community and society at large. As India continues to evolve, the Supreme Court’s judgements will remain central in defining the balance between individual rights, state intervention, and societal welfare.