From electoral bonds to guidelines on bulldozer action, a look at important decisions of the Supreme Court in 2024

New Delhi: In the year 2024, the Supreme Court gave many important decisions. These decisions had a deep impact on politics, economy and society. The Supreme Court made its stand clear on issues like Bilkis Bano case, electoral bonds, reservation, bulldozer action, status of AMU, Madarsa Board and bribery of MLAs. Let us understand all these decisions in detail.

Verdict reversed on Bilkis Bano case

First of all let us talk about Bilkis Bano case. On January 8, the Supreme Court canceled the amnesty given by the Gujarat government to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case. The bench of Justices Nagarathna and Ujjwal Bhuyan termed this apology as illegal. The Supreme Court ordered the culprits to surrender. The Gujarat government had released these convicts in August 2022.

The Supreme Court said that the release of the convicts was wrongly granted and against the law. Therefore it is necessary to send him/her to jail again. The court reprimanded the Gujarat government. Said that the government worked in collusion with one of the convicts, Radheshyam Bhagvandas Shah. Shah had misled the Supreme Court.

Supreme decision on electoral bonds

On February 15, the Supreme Court declared the electoral bond scheme unconstitutional. The court said that this violates the voters’ right to information. In these bonds the name of the donor is kept secret. Therefore this plan was cancelled. Besides, the amendments made in Income Tax Act, People’s Representation Act and Company Act were also cancelled.

The court directed the State Bank to stop issuing such bonds. Also, the Election Commission was asked to provide information about the bonds issued since 2019. The Supreme Court said that under the scheme, it is still possible for a political party to pressure people to make contributions. The court rejected the central government’s argument that the electoral bond scheme protects the privacy of the contributor like the secret ballot system.

The Supreme Court also did not agree with the Centre’s contention that a political party that receives donations does not know the identity of the donor, because neither their name is on the bond nor the bank provides such information to the political party. Could. The top court had said that the scheme was not sufficiently anonymous.

Supreme Court’s decision on reservation

On 1 August, the Supreme Court ruled that the creamy layer within the Scheduled Castes is valid in law to give more beneficial treatment. This decision was given by the bench headed by former CJI DY Chandrachud. In this decision the states were given the right to make sub-classification within the SC. So that the benefits of reservation in jobs and education can be given to certain groups.

However, the Supreme Court made it clear that the states will have to provide a logical basis for this sub-classification. Besides, it must also be mentioned that the number of groups which are being given more benefits is not sufficient. The Supreme Court also said that state legislatures cannot give all the seats reserved for SCs to just one sub-group. Other caste groups will also have rights on those seats.

Judgment given on bulldozer action also

On 13 November, the Supreme Court gave its verdict on the bulldozer action. The Court said that if the executive becomes a judge and punishes an accused or a convict by demolishing his/her house or commercial property, then it is crossing its limits. The bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan passed directions to ensure that no ‘bulldozer justice’ is unfairly delivered.

The Supreme Court ruled that the right to shelter is one of the aspects of Article 21, which protects the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. Depriving people of their right to life by removing shelter from their heads would be completely unconstitutional, the bench said. The Court ruled that officials found to have demolished properties illegally and unconstitutionally would be held responsible for the restoration of the demolished properties at their personal expense, in addition to payment of damages.

Decision given on minority status of AMU

On 8 November the Supreme Court overturned its 1967 decision. In this decision it was said that Aligarh Muslim University is not a minority institution. A Constitution bench by a majority overturned its previous decision, which had held that AMU could not claim minority status because it was established by a statute.

The majority led by then CJI Chandrachud held that an institution would not lose its minority status merely because it was created by a statute. The majority believed that the court should investigate who established the university and who was the brain behind it. If that investigation points towards a minority community, the institution can claim minority status. For factual determination on the issue of whether AMU is a minority institution, the Constitution Bench referred the matter to another bench.

Supreme Court’s decision on UP Madrasa Board

On 5 November, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Madrassa Education Board Act 2004, which established the Madrassa Board. A bench headed by former CJI Chandrachud set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment which had struck down the law on the grounds that it violates the basic structural feature of secularism.

Rejecting the High Court decision, the apex court ruled, ‘A law can be struck down only for violation of Part-3 or legislative competence and not for violation of the basic structure. The High Court erred in holding that the law had to be struck down for violating the basic structure. The Allahabad High Court had struck down the Madrassa Act in March 2024.

Judgment given on JMM bribery case

On March 4, the Supreme Court said corruption and bribery by members of legislatures lead to the erosion of integrity in public life. The court ruled that MPs and MLAs cannot claim immunity from prosecution on bribery charges in a criminal court under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution. A constitution bench overturned the 1998 decision of a five-member bench of the Supreme Court.

The majority judgment in the case of PV Narasimha Rao (supra) granted immunity from prosecution to a member of the legislature who was accused of allegedly accepting bribe for voting or speaking. In a unanimous decision, the court said it disagreed with the 1998 decision. The judgment said the 1998 judgment has wide-ranging implications for public interest, probity in public life and parliamentary democracy. There is a serious danger of allowing an error by this Court to persist if the decision is not reconsidered.