Best Of 2024 : Top 5 Supreme Court Decisions Of Past Year

The Supreme Court delivered several notable judgments in 2024 (a compilation of the 100 important judgments of the past year can be read here). Out of these, here is a pick of the top five judgments, which have the effect of strengthening the rule of law, boosting public confidence in the judiciary and triggering a positive change in the social and political spectrum.

1. Setting aside the remission of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case

Case Title : Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 22

Within a week of the new year, the Supreme Court delivered a bold judgment setting aside the Gujarat Government's decision to grant remission to eleven convicts who were sentenced to life in the horrific Bilkis Bano case. The premature release of the eleven convicts on the independence day of 2022 had shocked the public conscience, as they were convicted for their inhuman and brutal acts of multiple murders and gang-rapes of the Bilkis Bano family during the 2002 Gujarat riots. Several PILs were filed by social activists, politicians and former civil servants in the Supreme Court challenging the remission. Bilkis Bano herself also filed a petition.

On January 8, 2024, a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside the premature release of the convicts and directed them to surrender. The main premise of the decision was that the Gujarat Government was not the "appropriate government" as per Section 432 CrPC to grant remission, since the case was tried in the State of Maharashtra. The Court held that the rule of law was breached by the Gujarat Government by usurping the powers of the State of Maharashtra. The Court observed that the Gujarat Government "acted in tandem" with the convicts as it omitted to file a review petition against an earlier judgment which directed the Gujarat Government to decide remission. The Court also went to the extent of stating that the earlier judgment (which allowed the Gujarat Government to decide remission) was obtained by fraud and was hence per incurium.

"A woman deserves respect howsoever high or low she may otherwise be considered in society or to whatever faith she may follow or whatever creed she may belong to," the judgment stated. While rejecting the argument that asking the convicts to surrender would violate their right to liberty, the Court stated :

"If the convicts can circumvent the consequences of their conviction, the peace and tranquillity in the society will be reduced to a chimaera. The courts have to be mindful not just to the spelling of justice but also the content of it. It is the duty of this court to correct arbitrary orders at the earliest and to retain the foundation of trust of the public."

Relevance of the judgment

The case had political ramifications, as the party in power at the State and the Union were seemingly in support of the convicts. The Court displayed immense boldness by not only calling out the State Government's collusion but also by declaring a previous judgment of the Court as erroneous due to the play of fraud. The judgment was a powerful affirmation of the rule of law and a reflection of judicial courage to enforce it, regardless of the consequences. The judgment is also a good precedent on the principles of remission.

2. Electoral bonds judgment

Case Title : Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 118

On February 15, 2024, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down the anonymous electoral bonds scheme, which allowed big corporates to make large donations anonymously to political parties. A 5-judge bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra nullified the various amendments made to the RP Act, Income Tax Act, and Companies Act which facilitated the electoral bonds scheme.

The Court held that the scheme violated the voters right to information about political funding under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court held that the restrictive means test of the doctrine of proportionality is not satisfied and that there are other means other than electoral bonds to achieve the purpose of curbing black money, even assuming it to be a legitimate objective.

"Information about funding of political parties is essential for the effective exercise of the choice of voting," Chief Justice Chandrachud stressed, emphasising the importance of open governance.

Relevance of the judgment

The judgment has the impact of enhancing a voter's right to information, thereby increasing transparency in political funding and strengthening the electoral process.  The judgment is a strong bulwark protecting free and fair elections from unlimited and unaccounted corporate funding.

It is particularly laudable that the Court ensured that the judgment was enforced as it took the SBI - which was giving lame excuses for not divulging donors' information - to task. The Court made sure that the SBI and ECI published the relevant data, which helped the public to match the donors with the political parties. As a result of the judgment, the reports on various quid pro quo deals between political parties and big corporations came into the public domain.

3. Directions to end caste discrimination in prisons

Case Title : Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 771

On October 3, 2024, the Court laid down crucial guidelines for the prevention of segregation and division of labour solely on the basis of the caste of the prisoners in Prisons.

A 3-judge bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra struck down the provisions of the Prison Manuals of several States as per which jobs were assigned to prisons based on their castes.

In some states, rules mandated that persons belonging to lower-castes must do jobs related to sweeping, toilet-cleaning and sanitation. Certain rules allowed prisoners belonging to high castes to have food prepared by cooks who do not belong to low-castes. The Court denounced such rules, saying they amount to enforcing untouchability.

"These stereotypes not only criminalize entire communities but also reinforce caste-based prejudices. They resemble a form of untouchability, as they assign certain negative traits to specific groups based on identity, perpetuating their marginalization and exclusion," the judgment stated.

Relevance of the judgment

The judgment was a sad reflection of the unfortunate reality that caste-bias was strongly rooted in the Indian society, even after 75 years of the Constitution and has been institutionalised and normalised through various prison rules.

"More than 75 years since independence, we have not been able to eradicate the evil of caste discrimination. We need to have a national vision for justice and equality, which involves all citizens," the judgment authored by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stated.

The judgment is a strong message that the State cannot perpetuate caste-based divisions even in prisons. "Separate but equal" philosophy has no place in the Indian Constitution, the Court affirmed. The judgment also addressed the issue of bias against denotified tribes and issued directions to ensure that they are not arrested arbitrarily.

4. Stopping of 'bulldozer actions'

Case Title: In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 884

Sending a strong message against the trend of "bulldozer justice", the Supreme Court on November 13, 2024, held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime.

Permitting such action by the executive is contrary to the rule of law and also a violation of the principle of separation of powers, as it is for the judiciary to pronounce on the guilt of a person.

"The executive cannot declare a person guilty, as this process is the fundamental aspect of the judicial review. Only on the basis of the accusations, if the executive demolishes the property/properties of such an accused person without following the due process of law, it would strike at the basic principle of rule of law and is not permissible. The executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person accused is guilty and, therefore, punish him by demolishing his residential/commercial property/properties. Such an act of the executive would be transgressing its limits," a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan held.

Relevance of the judgment

The judgment came at a crucial juncture when the trend of government authorities demolishing the houses of persons accused of crimes reached an alarming proportion, threatening the foundation of the rule of law. Most of the victims of such lawless demolitions were persons belonging to minority communities. 'Bulldozer actions' were being used by many politicians as a public spectacle soon after the occurrence of any high-profile crime. The Court's interventions would ensure that politicians would not venture into such extra-constitutional measures to subvert the rule of law. 

Condemning the "collective punishment" inflicted on families, the judgment authored by Justice Gavai stated : "In our view, if demolition of a house is permitted wherein number of persons of a family or a few families reside only on the ground that one person residing in such a house is either an accused or convicted in the crime, it will amount to inflicting a collective punishment on the entire family or the families residing in such structure. In our considered view, our constitutional scheme and the criminal jurisprudence would never permit the same."

Apart from declaring such actions as illegal and unconstitutional, the Court issued a set of effective directions to ensure that demolitions are carried out only as a last resort, that too after following due process of notice and hearing, and giving adequate time to the persons to vacate. To ensure that notices are not back-dated and fabricated, the Court mandated that they should be uploaded on real-time basis on an online portal. 

Most importantly, the Court fixed accountability on the officers, by ordering that those who carry out demolitions in violation of the judgment would be hauled up for contempt and asked to compensate the losses at their personal cost.

5. Stopping of masjid surveys, mandir-masjid suits

On December 12, 2024, a bench comprising CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswananthan passed an interim order stopping the registration of fresh suits against places of worship and restraining trial courts from passing orders for survey and other effective interim directions in pending suits.

The Court passed the directions while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 and also a petition seeking the effective implementation of the Act.

"As the matter is sub-judice before this Court, we deem it appropriate to direct that while suits may be filed, no suits would be registered and proceedings undertaken till further orders of this Court. We also direct that in the pending suits, the Courts would not pass any effective interim orders or final orders, including orders of survey till the next date of hearing," the order stated.

Relevance of the order

Although this is only an interim order, its relevance cannot be overstated as it goes a long way in preserving the communal fabric of the nation.  The crucial intervention of the Court came amidst rising concerns about the filing of multiple suits in the country claiming ownership of medieval mosques and dargahs. A hasty survey order passed by a trial court against a 16th-century mosque in Sambhal (UP) had triggered violence in November, killing at least four persons.

 Other Supreme Court Annual Round-up reports can be read here.