It has been a busy year for the Supreme Court. Though pending cases still number an all-time high of 82,397, top court data suggests it cleared 59,098 cases against 60,341 cases registered this year clocking in an impressive 98 percent disposal rate.
This year also saw democracy on trial with Lok Sabha Elections, and assembly elections in seven states and one union territory. Focus shifted to the top court when it heard pleas seeking 100 per cent voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT), a decision on the government’s flagship electoral donor scheme and adjudicated on a vote tampering row in the Chandigarh mayoral elections that saw Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) winning the polls.
Four judges retired this year including Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, marking an end of his two-year-long tenure. Justice Sanjiv Khanna succeeded him and will remain the top judge till May 2025.
Earlier this year we also bid farewell to legal titan Fali Nariman who left behind an unmatched legacy spanning almost seven decades.
The Supreme Court delivered at least 1,012 judgements this year that included decisions on Constitution Bench matters, bail, human rights, and child rights matters among other issues.
BOOM lists a few matters of importance.
Supreme Court Rejects Plea For SIT Probe in Adani-Hindenburg Row
At the start of the year, the Supreme Court said no valid grounds were raised that necessitated the transfer of the SEBI probe to an SIT in the Hindenburg Research allegations of stock price manipulation by the Adani group of companies thereby putting a quietus on the judicial aspect of this matter.
SEBI carried out a “comprehensive investigation” without any “apparent regulatory failure,” the court had said.
The top court’s judgement came almost a year after it had constituted an expert committee to probe the issue.
Supreme Court Returned the Bilkis Bano convicts to prison
Supreme Court struck down the order that granted remission to 11 who were convicted for the gang-rape of Bilkis Bano and murder of her family during the 2002 Gujarat Riots. The top court’s order came on Bano's plea that challenged Gujarat government’s 2023 decision for pre-mature release of the rapists as part of India’s Independence Day celebrations.
In a scathing indictment of the state government, the top court said Gujarat usurped powers from Maharashtra in granting early release and was an instance of abuse of discretion.
Democracy on trial
The Supreme Court dealt with at least three issues that had a major bearing on the electoral process during poll year.
Electoral bonds unconstitutional
Ahead of the crucial Lok Sabha elections, the top court struck down the government’s electoral bonds scheme calling it unconstitutional and directed the State Bank of India to make public the names of the donors, which in turn, opened a pandora’s box of allegations of quid pro quo. However, even though the SC in its March 2024 judgement recognized that electoral bonds would give rise to quid pro quo arrangements, it dismissed pleas seeking a probe in the same.
SC says no to 100% VVPAT
Supreme Court in March 2024 rejected a batch of pleas seeking 100 per cent tally of votes cast on EVMs, votes by paper ballots and physically dropping VVPAT paper slips in ballot boxes. The top court’s verdict came ahead of Phase 2 of the Lok Sabha Elections 2024 when 88 constituencies across 13 states went to polls.
Chandigarh mayoral elections
The Supreme Court set aside the January 30 results of the Chandigarh Mayor Elections and declared Congress/AAP joint candidate Kuldeep Kumar as the winner after concluding that Anil Masih, the presiding officer, tampered with the ballots, in a dramatic turn of events.
During the hearing, SC had noted the Punjab and Haryana High Court had not done enough and observed the electoral process was a mockery and a “murder of democracy”.
No immunity for lawmakers
In a landmark decision, Constitution Bench of seven judges overturned its 1998 verdict that allowed parliamentarians to claim immunity for accepting bribes for votes in the house.
On Free Speech
The Supreme Court reiterated the right to free speech in a series of verdicts this year. The top court emphasized the need to sensitise police authorities on fundamental rights while quashing a criminal case against a professor who had posted 'Black Day' for Jammu and Kashmir as his WhatsApp status on the heels of the Centre’s decision to abrogate Article 370.
In another verdict, the Supreme Court said profanity per se is not obscene when it quashed criminal proceedings against the makers and actors of web series ‘College Romance’.
On bail jurisprudence
The Supreme Court verdicts on bail jurisprudence have been a mixed bag of sorts.
In several verdicts, the top court underscored the importance of personal liberty while reminding authorities that one couldn’t rely on stringent laws like UAPA, NDPS or PMLA to keep an accused behind bars. Especially if they have already undergone prolonged incarceration because the trial is unduly delayed with no end in sight.
Long incarceration due to delay in trial violates one’s fundamental right to liberty, the supreme court said.
Professor Shoma Sen, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, NewsClick Editor Prabir Purkayastha, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and ex-Deputy CM Manish Sisodia are but a few high profile cases where bail was granted despite stringent provisions.
In its Arvind Kejriwal judgement, the court said that mere suspicion was not enough to arrest an individual. Furthermore, it cautioned against sending the case back to trial courts once constitutional courts had heard the matter at length; whereas in its Manish Sisodia verdict, it lamented that trial courts and high courts had forgotten the adage ‘bail is the rule, jail an exception’.
“From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial Courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of granting bail…on account of non-grant of bail, even in open-and-shut cases, this court is getting huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial Courts and the high Courts should recognise that bail is the rule and jail an exception,” SC said.
In its Frank Vitus verdict, the Supreme Court further scrapped the condition where an accused enlarged on bail must share his location with the investigating officer.
Misuse of section 498A IPC
Before the Atul Subhash suicide ignited the debate on misuse of the anti-dowry law against husbands and in-laws, Supreme Court in several instances raised similar concerns and requested the Parliament to make necessary amendments in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Right to be free from adverse effects of Climate Change
In deciding on the conservation of the Great Indian Bustard, the Supreme Court, perhaps for the first time, recognized the right against climate change as a fundamental right.
“It is yet to be articulated that the people have a right against the adverse effects of climate change…As the havoc caused by climate change increases year-by-year, it becomes necessary to articulate this as a distinct right. It is recognised by Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life),” Supreme Court said.
Guidelines against bulldozer justice
In a strongly worded order, the Supreme Court laid stringent guidelines to curb “bulldozer justice” and warned officials against demolishing houses of an accused as a punitive action. It is illegal and unconstitutional to demolish the house of a person simply because they are accused or convicted of a crime, the top court said.
“Executive cannot become a judge and demolish the properties of the persons accused...chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building reminds one of lawlessness where might was right. Such highhanded and arbitrary actions have no place in a constitutional democracy...,” the Supreme Court said, adding that “Public officials who take law in their hands and act in such a high-handed manner must be fastened with accountability...”.
Possession of child pornography a crime under POCSO
The Supreme Court criminalized viewing, possession and storage of child pornography under POCSO laws. Furthermore, the top court said social media intermediaries do not “expeditiously” take down child porn it would lose its ‘safe habour’ clause under the Information Technology Act, 2000.