- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- 100 Important Supreme Court...
100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2024 - Part 1 [1-25]
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
21 Dec 2024 9:45 AM IST
![100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2024 - Part 1 [1-25]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/12/18/750x450_577180-100-important-judgments-of-2024.webp "100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2024 - Part 1 [1-25]")
As is the annual tradition, LiveLaw brings to you the list of 100 important Supreme Court judgments of the current year - a much-awaited article by our dear readers.The judgments are selected based on the following criteria - (i) importance to the general public; (ii) settlement of a contested position of law; (iii) utility for practising lawyers, judges and students.A disclaimer is added...
As is the annual tradition, LiveLaw brings to you the list of 100 important Supreme Court judgments of the current year - a much-awaited article by our dear readers.
The judgments are selected based on the following criteria - (i) importance to the general public; (ii) settlement of a contested position of law; (iii) utility for practising lawyers, judges and students.
A disclaimer is added here that the judgments included in the list are not necessarily good or the best judgments; some of them are controversial and regarding some others, there are strong counter-views. Yet, these judgments are worthy of being noted and discussed upon, considering their general importance and impact on litigation and the general socio-political arena. Hence, the inclusion in this list. The judgments are arranged in the chronological order. The reports about the judgments are hyperlinked at the title.
The list of 100 judgments will be published in four parts and this is the first part.
Case Title: Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India W.P.(C) No. 162/2023 and connected cases., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 2
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court refused to order a probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) into the allegations levelled in the Hindenburg Research report regarding stock price manipulations by the Adani group of companies.
The Court refused to accept the reliance placed by the petitioners on newspaper reports and the report of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to doubt the SEBI probe.
The Court also ordered SEBI and the investigative agencies of the Union government, to probe into whether the loss suffered by Indian investors due to the conduct of the Hindenburg research and any other entities in taking short position involved any infraction of law. Reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court framed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on the summoning of government officials and directed that all High Courts should follow it. All High Courts should consider framing rules to regulate the appearance of officials after taking into account the SOP. Reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 22
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court had set aside the remission of 11 convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple murders and gang rapes, including that of Bilkis Bano, during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat.
The court held that the State of Gujarat was not the "appropriate government" to decide the issue of remission as the trial was held in the State of Maharashtra. Since the Gujarat Government was found to be incompetent, the remission orders were held to be invalid. Accordingly, the court directed the convicts, who were given premature release in August 2022, to surrender in prison within two weeks. Reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Title: S Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and others., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 35
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal
Taking note of the dismal rate of grant of compensation under the scheme formulated by the Central Government for the victims of 'hit and run' accidents, the Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions.
The bench also suggested a revision of the compensation amount of Rs 2 lakh and Rs 50,000 for death and greivous injuries respectively arising out of hit and run cases.
5. Caste Or Religion Of Parties Should Not Be Mentioned In Any Filings Before Courts : Supreme Court
Case Title: SHAMA SHARMA v. KISHAN KUMAR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 62
Coram: Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah
The Supreme Court passed a general order directing that the caste or religion of parties shall not be mentioned in the memo of parties of a petition/proceeding filed before the Courts.
Case Title: State through CBI vs Naresh Prasad Agarwal., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 133
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court quashed a judgment of the Madras High Court on the sole ground that the judge released it after retirement.
Observing that a judge retaining the case file after demitting office is a gross impropriety, the bench remitted the appeal to the High Court for its fresh consideration.
Case Title: CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD v. TARSEM LAL., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 139
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
In an important judgment, the Supreme Court held that a person with the status of a Scheduled Tribe (ST) in one State cannot claim the same benefit in another State or Union Territory where he/ she has eventually migrated, where the tribe is not notified as ST.
Case Title: High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 177
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Abhay S Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra.
In a significant ruling, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court overturned its 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment which mandated the interim orders passed by High Courts staying trials in civil and criminal cases will automatically expire after six months from the date of the order, unless expressly extended by the High Courts.
The Court also issued guidelines regarding the procedure to be followed by high courts in passing interim orders of stay of proceedings and dealing with applications for vacating such stays. Reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Title: Sita Soren v. Union of India., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 185
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra.
In a landmark decision, a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment which held that members of parliament and legislative assemblies could claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for receiving a bribe in contemplation of a vote or speech in the legislature.
In a detailed ruling, the Supreme Court has now emphasised that the purpose of Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution is to sustain an environment where debate and deliberation can take place within the legislature. This purpose, the court noted, is undermined when a member is induced to vote or speak in a particular manner because of an act of bribery. Reports about the judgment can be read here.
10. Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bonds Scheme As Unconstitutional, Asks SBI To Stop Issuing EBs
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118
Coram: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court (5-judge bench) delivered held that anonymous electoral bonds are violative of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the scheme has been struck down as unconstitutional. Reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Details: Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 208
Coram: Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court quashed a criminal case against a professor for his WhatsApp status criticising the abrogation of Article 370, describing it as a 'Black Day' for Jammu and Kashmir. In the same judgment, the Court emphasised the need to sensitise police officers about fundamental rights.
Also from the judgment - Need To Educate Police About Freedom Of Speech, They Must Be Sensitised About Democratic Values : Supreme Court
Case Title: DABLU KUJUR VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 227
Coram: Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal
The Supreme Court observed that police officers submitting the police report/chargesheet to the magistrate as per the State Police Manual shall abide by the particulars of Section 173 (2) and directed the officers in charge of every police station across the country to strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. failing which it shall be strictly viewed by the concerned courts i.e., where the chargesheet/police report is filed.
Case Title: RAKESH RANJAN SHRIVASTAVA VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 235
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
The Supreme Court observed that mere filing of the cheque dishonor complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act would not grant a right to a complainant to seek interim compensation under Section 143A (1) of the N.I. Act, as the power of the court to grant interim compensation, isn't mandatory but discretionary and needs to be decided after prima facie evaluating the merits of the case.
Case details : UNION OF INDIA MINISTY OF LAW JUSTICE vs. JUSTICE (RETD.) RAJ RAHUL GARG (RAJ RANI JAIN) | SLP(C) No. 007246 - / 2019
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
In an important judgment, the Supreme Court held there cannot be any discrimination between the retired High Court judges, depending on their source of elevation (whether from the bar or the District Judiciary), while computing their pensionary benefits.
Case Title: APOORVA ARORA & ANR. ETC. VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 243
Coram: Justices A.S. Bopanna and P.S. Narasimha
The Supreme Court quashed the pending criminal case of obscenity against the makers of the Web Series named "College Romance". Reversing the findings of the Delhi High Court which had refused to quash the obscenity case against the lead casts and makers of the web series, the Bench held that vulgarity and profanities do not per se amount to obscenity.
Case Title: NAVAS @ MULANAVAS vs. STATE OF KERALA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 248
Coram: Justices B.R Gavai, K.V Vishwanathan and Sandeep Mehta
The Supreme Court, in its verdict, recapitulated certain factors that the courts considered while deciding convicts' period of sentence before remission could be sought. These factors included the nature of injuries, the number of deceased victims, the criminal antecedents of the accused, and also whether the crime was committed while the accused was on bail.
Case Details: DEVU G. NAIR vs. THE STATE OF KERALA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 249
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has issued guidelines for the High Courts in dealing with habeas corpus petitions or petitions seeking police protection. The guidelines come as a consequence of a petition filed by a woman against a Kerala High Court order which, while considering a habeas corpus petition, directed her alleged lesbian partner to undergo counselling. The court in issuing the said guidelines observed that such directions for counselling often torment the members of the LGBTQ+ community and could have deterrent effects.
Case Title: NOBLE M PAIKADA vs. UNION OF INDIA., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 252
Coram: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol
The Supreme Court set aside an amendment that eliminated the requirement of environmental clearance for extracting the earth for linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc. The Court termed this blanket exemption “completely unguided.” Based on this, it was held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Case Title: KARIKHO KRI vs. NUNEY TAYANG, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 290
Coram: Justices Anirudhha Bose and Sanjay Kumar
Holding that candidates contesting elections are not required to disclose each and every moveable property owned by them or their dependents unless they are of substantial value or reflect a luxurious lifestyle, the Supreme Court upheld the 2019 election of the Independent MLA Karikho Kri from the Tezu Assembly constituency in Arunachal Pradesh. The Court held that every defect in a nomination filed by a candidate contesting elections will not make the nomination invalid. Only defects of a substantial nature, which can impact the outcome of election, will render the nomination invalid. Every non-disclosure, irrespective of its gravity and impact, would not automatically amount to a defect of substantial nature. Reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Title: Association of Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 434 of 2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 328
Coram : Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta.
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the pleas seeking 100% cross-verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) data with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) records. The Court observed that the suspicions regarding EVM tampering are unfounded and reverting back to the ballot paper system, as prayed, would undo the reforms that have taken place over the years. Reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Title : Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal
Coram: Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih
The Court emphasized that for a Hindu marriage to be valid, it must be performed with the appropriate rites and ceremonies, such as saptapadi (seven steps around the sacred fire) if included, and proof of these ceremonies is essential in case of disputes. The Court emphasized that Hindu Marriage is a sacred institution and should not be trivialized as a mere social event for "song and dance" and "wining and dining".
Also from the judgment - Hindu Marriage A 'Samskara' & A Sacrament; Not An Event For 'Song & Dance', 'Wining & Dining' Or Commercial Transaction: Supreme Court
Case Title : Shoma Kanti Sen v. State | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 280
Coram : Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice AG Masih
Case Title: Sharif Ahmed and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, VAKIL AHMAD & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANR. | 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 337
Coram: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti
Taking note of the importance of the submission of a charge sheet to take cognizance of an offence by a magistrate, the Supreme Court observed that the charge sheet must contain clear and complete entries of all columns to enable the court to understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file.
Case Title: ACHIN GUPTA VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343
Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
Raising serious concerns about the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code proceedings against the husband and in-laws by the wife, the Supreme Court requested the Parliament to bring out necessary changes to the new IPC i.e., Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) which contained provisions such Section 85 and 86 akin to Section 498A of IPC.
Case Title : Anees v. The State Govt of NCT
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344
Coram: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra
The Supreme Court has noted a lack of thorough cross-examination by Public Prosecutors in criminal appeals, specifically with hostile witnesses.
The prosecutors often only confront them with their police statement, aiming to highlight contradictions but not fully explore the witness's testimony, the Court said.
Other parts will be published soon.
