New Delhi: In 2024, the Supreme Court delivered judgments which had wide-ranging ramifications and played a significant role in instilling people’s faith in the justice delivery system. In this year-end special, ETV Bharat has selected four judgments of the apex court and key developments in the judicial landscape, that have left a mark on 2024:
Government cannot take all private properties
In November, a nine-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court, in a majority judgment, ruled that not every resource owned by private parties can be considered a “material resource of the community”, which the government could use to serve the “common good”.
The apex court’s verdict provided clarity on the interpretation of Articles 31C and 39(b) of the Constitution. These are crucial provisions in connection with the rights of individuals against the state’s authority to control resources for the public good. The apex court held that Justice V Krishna Iyer's previous decisions which declared that all privately owned resources can be acquired by the state, was motivated by a particular economic and socialist ideology.
The apex court said it would not subscribe to the expansive view adopted in the minority judgement authored by Justice Krishna Iyer in State of Karnataka Vs Ranganatha Reddy (1977) and subsequently relied on by this court in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (1983).
The apex court said its role is not to lay down economic policy, but to facilitate the intent of the framers to lay down the foundation for an economic democracy.
The apex court stressed 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 apex court stressed that the country’s economy has moved from majorly being a public investment to the co-existence of public and private investments.
SC’s big decision on bulldozer action
In a significant ruling the Supreme Court in November put the brakes on bulldozer culture, which majorly targeted the minority community. Echoing its concern on demolition of property as a punitive measure, against the alleged offenders, the apex court said it is a “chilling sight" when a bulldozer is used to hand out one of the harshest punishments: demolition of private property or homes of accused persons. The apex court bulldozer culture should be avoided even if there is no legal challenge.
The apex court deplored illegal demolitions and minced no words in criticizing the state's overreach in judicial matters. The apex court stressed that illegal demolitions, which also impact the family, are “nothing but an anarchy” and a “lawless state of affairs, where might be right”.
The apex court, using its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, issued a slew of guidelines for following due process before demolitions of unauthorised structures, which included 15 days’ notice for the residents on the property to find another place to live.
SC nixes electoral bond scheme
On February 15, the Supreme Court struck down the electoral bond scheme saying it was unconstitutional and manifestly arbitrary. The scheme was brought in 2018 as an alternative to cash donations made to political parties to bring transparency to political funding.
The apex court ruled that information about funding to political parties is essential for electoral choices and the anonymous electoral bonds violate the right to Information and Section 19(1)(a). The apex court said anonymous electoral bonds are violative of the right to information and Article 19(1)(a). The apex court said financial support to political parties can lead to quid pro quo arrangement and the electoral bonds scheme is not the only scheme to curb black money and there are other alternatives.
The apex court had asked the banks to forthwith stop issuing electoral bonds and asked SBI to provide all details of contributions made to date through the scheme to the Election Commission by March 6. The apex court directed the commission to share the information on its website by March 13.
The apex court had stressed bringing transparency in corporate funding of parties to eliminate kickbacks, and quid pro quo and maintain political equality in the polls. The five-judge bench unanimously refused to accept Centre’s rationale of the scheme and made it clear that voters cannot be kept in the dark about huge donations to political parties.
States can collect past dues on royalties for mineral-bearing land from the Centre
In August, the Supreme Court allowed states to collect past dues on royalties on minerals-bearing land from the central government Centre and mining companies from April 1, 2005, onwards. The apex court refused to accept the central government’s contention for the prospective effect of its July 25 verdict.
In the July verdict, a nine-judge bench, by the majority, ruled that states have legislative competence to levy taxes on minerals and mineral-bearing lands. The apex court held that royalty is not a tax. “Royalty is a contractual consideration paid by the mining lessee to the lessor for enjoyment of mineral rights. The liability to pay royalty arises out of the contractual conditions of the mining lease. The payments made to the government cannot be deemed to be a tax merely because the statute provides for their recovery as arrears”, said the apex court.
Apart from important Supreme Court verdicts, there were significant developments in the judicial landscape of the country.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and two other laws came into effect
From July 1, India replaced its colonial-era criminal laws with a set of three new penal laws. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860 was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, was substituted by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872, was replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSB).
The central government introduced these laws in August last year. Later, these laws were referred to a 31-member Parliamentary Standing Committee headed by BJP MP Brij Lal for review. The revised bills were later introduced in the Lok Sabha by Union Home Minister Amit Shah on December 12, 2023, and received Presidential assent on December 25, 2023.
New Lady Justice statue unveiled
In October, the Chief Justice of India unveiled the ‘new lady justice’ statue on the premises of the Supreme Court, replacing the ‘original lady justice’. The blindfold of the new statue, clothed in a saree, has been removed. The statue holds scales on one hand and the Constitution on the other.
Traditionally, lady Justice has been depicted wearing a blindfold, symbolising that justice should be administered without prejudice, irrespective of wealth, power, and social status. The scales represent balance – the justice delivery system must consider both sides of an argument before arriving at a judgment. And, the sword symbolises the power and authority of the law.
The new statute without blindfolds represents cognizance of societal realities and endorses transparency in judicial processes. The new statue has been designed by Vinod Goswami, a muralist who teaches at the College of Art in Delhi
New CJI takes charge
On November 11, Justice Sanjiv Khanna took over as the 51st Chief Justice of India, succeeding Justice DY Chandrachud, who demitted office on November 10. President Droupadi Murmu administered the oath of office to Justice Khanna at a ceremony in Rashtrapati Bhavan. Justice Khanna will have a term of nearly seven months till May 13, 2025.
Justice Khanna has been instrumental in delivering verdicts on electronic voting machines (EVMs), electoral bonds, and the abrogation of Article 370, among others. In July, a bench led by Justice Khanna gave interim bail to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in an ED case in connection with the Delhi excise policy case. In April 2024, Justice Khanna rejected pleas questioning the use of EVMs in the Lok Sabha election.
