From Electoral Bonds to Addressing Child Marriage, Supreme Court, Landmark Judgments 2024, India, Legal System, Court Proceedings, India, Year End

In February 2024, a five-judge Constitution struck down the electoral bond scheme, arguing that denying voters the right to know the details of political party funding would lead to a dichotomous situation and party funding cannot be treated differently from political parties. candidates contesting the elections.

In a unanimous verdict, the Constitution Bench, headed by CJI DY Chandrachud (now retired) and comprising Justices BR Gavai, Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, ordered State Bank of India (SBI) to immediately stop issuing bonds and ordered the Electoral Commission to publish, on its official website, the details of the political parties that received contributions through electoral bonds. from April 2019.

Later, a 3-judge bench refused to entertain a PIL seeking an SIT probe under the supervision of a retired Supreme Court judge into an alleged poll funding scam using electoral bonds.

A bench headed by then CJI Chandrachud set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which struck down the Uttar Pradesh Madarsa Board Education Act, 2004, which held that the impugned Act should be struck down for violating the basic structure. and the principles of secularism.

The Court, also comprising Justices Pardiwala and Misra, held that the Madarsa Education Act was “unconstitutional” insofar as it regulated higher education in conflict with the UGC Act and held that Article 21-A of the Constitution and the right of children to liberty and the Act of Compulsory Education (RTE) of 2009 must be interpreted in line with the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer the educational institutions of their choice.

Prosecution of MPs/MPs for bribery

In its unanimous verdict, a 7-judge constitution bench headed by CJI Chandrachud set aside a 1998 judgment that granted immunity to MPs from prosecution for accepting bribes to deliver a speech or vote in Parliament or state legislatures.

The Supreme Court has held that MPs/MPs cannot claim immunity from prosecution in a criminal court for engaging in bribery for casting a vote or speaking in a certain way.

In its 1998 judgment in PV Narasimha Rao versus CBI, the apex court held that parliamentarians, under Article 105 of the Constitution, enjoy immunity from prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote cast in Parliament. Similar immunity is conferred by Article 194 paragraph (2) to members of the State Legislature.

“Quotation within quota” allowed

In August this year, a 7-judge constitution bench held that sub-classification under Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) would be allowed to provide benefits of affirmative action.

It suggested application of the ‘creamy layer’ principle to avail quota benefits, but with a caveat that while providing for sub-classification, the government would not be entitled to reserve 100% of the seats available for SC/ST for a particular sub. – the class excluding other castes from the List.

In a 6:1 decision, it overturned its 2004 judgment which had ruled against granting preferential treatment to certain sub-castes under the SC “as members of reserved category groups form a homogeneous class incapable of further regrouping or classification “.

Caste-based division of labor in prisons

The Supreme Court held unconstitutional the practice of employing “lower caste” jail inmates in cleaning and manual cleaning work in jails. The bench, headed by then CJI Chandrachud (now retired) and comprising Justices Pardiwala and Misra, ordered that the “caste” column and any references to caste in prison inmate registers be deleted from prison manuals and related laws.

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act was retained

A five-judge constitution bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which was inserted to give effect to the Assam Accord and formed the basis of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam in 2019.

Interpretation of article 39 letter (b) of the Constitution

A seven-judge constitutional commission ruled that not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a “material resource of the community” just because it meets the qualifier “material needs”.

The bench, headed by CJI DY Chandrachud (now retired) and comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Pardiwala, Misra, Rajesh Bindal, SC Sharma and AG Masih, was dealing with questions as to whether the term ‘material resources’ of the community” in Article 39 letter (b) include private property and if the laws are intended to achieve the objective of this provision of redistributing material resources for the “common good” to be exempt from legal challenges based on violations of fundamental rights.

While Justice Nagarathna wrote a separate but partially concurring opinion, Justice Dhulia wrote a dissenting judgment.

The Adani-Hindenburg controversy

The Supreme Court refused to form any SIT or panel of experts to conduct the probe in the Adani-Hindenburg controversy and said that the facts of the case did not warrant a transfer of the probe from SEBI, holding that reports prepared by third-party organizations such as the Reporting Project of Organized Crime and Corruption (OCCRP) and Hindenburg Research cannot be considered “conclusive evidence”.

LMV license holders do not need a separate endorsement to drive light transport vehicles

A five-judge constitution bench has reiterated that Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) permit holders do not need any separate approval to drive an LMV class transport vehicle if the gross weight of the vehicle is below 7,500 kg.

Effective implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006

Stating that child marriage deprives children of their freedom to develop and fully enjoy their childhood, the Supreme Court issued a number of directions for the effective implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, including ordering state and Union governments. Territories to appoint single officers responsible for carrying out the functions of District Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs). level.

Recruitment rules cannot be changed halfway through

A Constitution has reiterated that the rules of recruitment cannot be changed after the selection process has commenced, unless otherwise provided in the existing rules or in the recruitment notice, and if a change in the eligibility criteria is permitted by the rules or notice , will have to satisfy the test. arbitrary.

Appointment of arbitrators in public-private contract

A 5-judge constitutional panel ruled that the unilateral appointment of arbitrators by a government entity in a public-private contract violates Article 14 of the Constitution because, since government activities have a public element, the onus is on the government to ensure that enter into a contract with the public without adopting any unfair or unreasonable procedure. IANS