Year of judicial milestones: Landmark SC verdicts, policy shifts in 2024

From taking a strong stance against 'bulldozer justice' to overruling past judgment on legislative immunity for bribery, the top court set several precedents during the year to uphold the constitution

The year 2024 has been nothing short of transformative for India’s judiciary, with the Supreme Court (SC) marking some groundbreaking decisions that reshaped the legal and policy frameworks of the country. From striking down controversial policies like the electoral bonds scheme to regulation of madrasa education, these rulings have ignited spirited debates during the year. Each verdict has redefined the boundaries of constitutional law, leaving a lasting impact on India’s political, social, and legal fabric. Let us delve into some of the key and landmark judgements passed by the SC in 2024. 

Supreme Court strikes down electoral bonds scheme

One of the most significant rulings of the Supreme Court came on February 15, 2024, when the SC struck down the 2017 electoral bond scheme, declaring it unconstitutional for infringing upon the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a).

 

 

A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, ruled that anonymous donations through electoral bonds undermined participatory democracy by depriving the public of essential transparency in political funding. The Court said that such opacity compromises free and fair elections, favouring corporate interests over individual rights.

 

The judgment invalidated amendments to the Income Tax Act, Representation of People Act, and Companies Act, which had facilitated anonymous and unlimited corporate donations, enabling undue influence in politics.

SC rules against legislative immunity for bribery

On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC), in the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) cash-for-votes case, overruled its 1998 judgment in the PV Narasimha Rao case that granted immunity to legislators under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution over bribes associated with legislative activities. A seven-judge bench headed by the then CJI DY Chandrachud held that parliamentary privileges cannot cover corruption and clarified that immunity extends only to acts indispensable to the legislative functions, not to criminal acts like bribery.

SC strikes down unconstitutional location tracking condition

In a case involving a Nigerian national accused in a drug-related case, the SC on July 8, 2024 ruled that bail conditions cannot violate an accused’s right to privacy or subject them to continuous surveillance. The top court found a condition requiring the accused to drop a pin on Google Maps for location tracking to be ‘unconstitutional’. The court emphasised that bail should not impose undue restrictions on liberty or amount to confinement, and an accused’s right to privacy, protected under Article 21, must be respected.

SC permits sub-classification within Scheduled Castes category

In August 2024, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled by 6:1 majority that sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SC) category is permissible, allowing for more targeted quotas for historically underrepresented sub-groups.

 

It overruled the 2005 E V Chinnaiah ruling, which had previously held that the SC category as a homogeneous group. The judgement led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud is seen as a crucial step toward benefiting marginalised sections within the SC community.

SC says ‘consensual sex’ is not an exception under POCSO 

On August 20, the Supreme Court overturned a contentious Calcutta High Court judgment on a POCSO case involving a 14-year-old girl. The High Court had set aside the conviction of the accused mentioning that the POCSO Act is ‘too harsh on consensual adolescent relationships’. 

 

Referring to the High Court’s judgment, the SC said, “The very fact that the juvenile is a child makes a sexual act with her exploitative, irrespective of consent.” The top court reaffirmed strict adherence to child protection laws and dismissed attempts to water down the POCSO Act.

SC strikes down caste-based segregation in prisons

In October 2024, the Supreme Court of India struck down provisions in state prison manuals that assigned tasks based on caste, calling it “discriminatory”. The court criticised the practice of reserving cleaning tasks for marginalised castes while assigning cooking duties to higher-caste prisoners, stating it violated Article 15 of the Constitution. The top court reiterated that this kind of caste-based segregation reinforced harmful stereotypes and social hierarchies, thereby undermining the very principles of equality and justice.

 

SC upholds validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act

In October 2024, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which grants citizenship to foreign migrants of Indian origin who arrived in Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971.

 

Section 6A refers to illegal migration from Bangladesh that the ‘Assam Accord’ of 1985 has raised a concern over. The SC upheld the provision on the grounds of Assam’s peculiar demographic problems and the historical context of the cut-off date of 1971.

SC upholds Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Education Act

In November 2024, the SC upheld the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, as constitutionally valid, thus reversing an Allahabad High Court ruling that mentioned the Act violates the principle of secularism. The SC held that a statute can be struck down only if it violates fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution or violates provisions regarding legislative competence.

 

SC ruling on ‘bulldozer justice’: A violation of rule of law

In November 2024, the Supreme Court condemned the practice of demolitions by state authorities as a form of punitive action, known as ‘bulldozer justice’. The bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan ruled that such demolitions violate the rule of law, the principle of separation of powers, and the fundamental right to shelter. It emphasised that property demolition without judicial oversight bypasses due process and violates the presumption of innocence. The judgment reiterated the need for public accountability and adherence to legal procedures.