Electoral bonds to quotas to child marriage: Landmark verdicts delivered by the Supreme Court in 2024

New Delhi, Dec 29 (IANS) From striking down the electoral bonds scheme to ruling on quotas within quotas and criminal prosecution of lawmakers, here are the landmark verdicts delivered by the Supreme Court in 2024.

Electoral bonds

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

In a unanimous verdict, the Constitution Bench, headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud (now retired) and comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, had directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to forthwith stop the issuance of electoral bonds and ordered the Election Commission to publish, on its official website, the details of the political parties which have received contributions through electoral bonds since April 2019.

Subsequently, a 3-judge Bench declined to entertain a PIL seeking a SIT probe under the supervision of a retired apex court judge into an alleged scam in poll financing using electoral bonds.

UP Madarsa Act

A bench, headed by then CJI Chandrachud, set aside the Allahabad High Court ruling which had struck down the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004, which had held that the impugned law was bound to be struck down for violation of the basic structure and principles of secularism.

The Bench, also comprising Justices Pardiwala and Misra, held the Madarsa Education Act “unconstitutional” to the extent it regulates higher education in conflict with the UGC Act, and held that Article 21-A of the Constitution and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 have to be read consistently with the right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

MPs/MLAs prosecution for bribery

In its unanimous verdict, a 7-judge Constitution Bench, headed by CJI Chandrachud, overruled a 1998 judgment granting immunity to lawmakers from criminal prosecution for accepting bribes to make a speech or vote in the Parliament or state legislatures.

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

In its 1998 judgment in the P.V. Narasimha Rao versus CBI case, the apex court had laid down that the parliamentarians, against the backdrop of Article 105 of the Constitution, enjoy immunity against criminal prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament. Similar immunity is conferred by Article 194(2) on Members of the State Legislatures.

‘Quota within quota’ permissible

In August this year, a 7-judge Constitution Bench held that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) would be permissible for providing benefits of affirmative action.

It suggested the application of the “creamy layer” principle for availing quota benefits, but with a caveat that while providing for sub-classification, the government would not be entitled to reserve 100 per cent of seats available for SCs/STs for a particular sub-class to the exclusion of other castes in the List.

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

Caste-based division of labour in prisons

The Supreme Court held it unconstitutional the practice of employing “lower caste” jail inmates in cleaning and manual scavenging work in prisons. The Bench, headed by then CJI Chandrachud (now retired) and comprising Justices Pardiwala and Misra, directed that the “caste” column and any references to caste in prisoners’ registers inside the prisons be deleted in the prison manuals and related laws.

Section 6A of Citizenship Act upheld

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(b) of the Constitution

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

The bench, headed by CJI DY Chandrachud (now retired) and comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Pardiwala, Misra, Rajesh Bindal, S.C. Sharma, and A.G. Masih, was dealing with questions as to whether the term “material resources of the community” in Article 39 (b) include privately owned property and whether laws intended to achieve this provision’s objective of redistributing material resources for the “common good” be exempted from legal challenges based on violations of fundamental rights.

While Justice Nagarathna authored a separate but partially concurring opinion, Justice Dhulia penned down a dissenting judgment.

Adani-Hindenburg controversy

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

LMV licence holders need no separate endorsement to drive light transport vehicles

A five-judge Constitution Bench reiterated that Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) licence holders do not require any separate endorsement to drive a transport vehicle of the LMV class if the gross vehicle weight is under 7,500 kg.

Effective implementation of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006

Saying that child marriage deprives children of their agency, autonomy and right to fully develop and enjoy their childhood, the Supreme Court issued a slew of directions for the effective implementation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, including ordering the state governments and Union Territories to appoint officers solely responsible for discharging the functions of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs) at the district level.

Recruitment rules cannot be amended midway

A Constitution Bench reiterated that recruitment rules cannot be amended after the selection process has commenced, unless provided otherwise in the extant rules or the recruitment advertisement, and if a change in eligibility criteria is permitted under rules or advertisement, it will have to satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness.

Appointment of arbitrators in public-private contract

A 5-judge Constitution Bench ruled that the unilateral appointment of arbitrators by a government entity in a public-private contract violates Article 14 of the Constitution, as since the activities of the government have a public element, it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that it enters into a contract with the public without adopting any unfair or unreasonable procedure.

–IANS

pds/vd