Here is the part 1 of top 50 Landmark Supreme Court Judgments pronounced in the year 2024.
At JurisHour, we bring you the top judgments of the year—a curated list for Advocates, legal professionals, and Students.
Table of Contents
Here is the list of Landmark Supreme Court judgments, 2024:
Aligarh Muslim University Case: “Establishment” of Institution by Minority Necessary to Claim Right of Administration under Article 30 of Constitution of India: Supreme Court of India
Case Title: Aligarh Muslim University v/s Naresh Agarwal & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that the “establishment” of an institution by the minority is necessary for the said minority to claim right of administration under Article 30. The words “establish” and “administer” are used conjunctively in Article 30 of the Constitution.
The term “establish” in Article 30 means “to bring into existence or to create” and cannot be conflated with generic phrases such as “genesis of the institution” or the “founding moment of the institution”.
Duty Of Court To Ensure Arbitration Agreement Inspires Confidence And Enable Establishment Of Independent And Impartial Arbitral Tribunal: Supreme Court
Case Title: Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Versus M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company
The Supreme Court observed that Neither public policy considerations under the Contract Act or the Arbitration Act restrain the parties to the arbitration from maintaining a panel of arbitrators in any manner. However, arbitration agreements enabling one of the parties to unilaterally constitute arbitral tribunal do not inspire confidence of independence and may violate the public policy requirement of constituting an independent and impartial tribunal. The court will, therefore, scrutinise the agreement and hold them to be invalid if it considers it appropriate.
Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment: Supreme Court
Case Title: Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Versus Rajasthan High Court & Ors.
The 5 Judges Bench of Supreme Court observed that the placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.
Driver Holding License For Light Motor Vehicle (Lmv) Class, For Vehicles With A Gross Vehicle Weight Under 7,500 Kg, Permitted To Operate ‘transport Vehicle’: Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rambha Devi & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that a driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘Transport Vehicle’ class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, erickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.
Madarsa Act Is Within Legislative Competence Of State Legislature And Traceable To Entry 25 Of List Ill: Supreme Court
Case Title: Anjum Kadari & Anr V/s Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that Madarsa Act is within the legislative competence of the State legislature and traceable to Entry 25 of List III. However, the provisions of the Madarsa Act which seek to regulate higher-education degrees, such as Fazil and Kamil are unconstitutional as they are in conflict with the UGC Act, which has been enacted under Entry 66 of List I.
Section 6A Of Citizenship Act Declared Invalid With Prospective Effect: Supreme Court
In Re : Section 6a Of The Citizenship Act 1955
The Supreme Court viewed that although the mandate of timely detection and deportation of illegal immigrants was the fundamental premise on which the Assam Accord was signed, yet, this intention recorded in the Accord, was never translated statutorily, due to a faulty mechanism prescribed under Section 6A(3), either due to inadvertence or advertence of the legislature.
The bench held that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act deserves to be declared invalid with prospective effect and the same is accordingly declared so.
Not All Private Property Qualifies As ‘Material Resources Of Community’ : Supreme Court Interprets ‘Private Property’
Case Tite: Property Owners Association & Ors. v/s State of Maharashtra & Ors
The Supreme Court observed that even till the 70s and early 80s, the Court had no difficulty in interpretating and giving a meaning to the words ‘material resources of the community’, by including privately owned resources as its part. Doubts have been raised by this Court now, which is only significant of the times we presently live in. When a wider interpretation was given to the words “material resources” in the 60s, 70s and early 80s, it was in an era where socialism was still a principle embedded in our constitutional ethos and definitely in our economy. The political philosophy of that day also recognised and accepted this principle. Times have changed since then, and so has the governing philosophy which is now of a liberal and market driven economy.
“All the same, as our short but significant constitutional journey demonstrates the crucial Constitutional Amendments and its consequence, the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court relate as much to personal liberty as to wealth and its redistribution, which again is a part of the “material resources of the community”, covered under Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution. These decisions directly or indirectly touch upon “material resources of the community”. Will we be correct in saying today that, private resources are not a part of the “material resources of the community”. Can this be said in the light of the present times since ‘Constitution is a living document’!”, the court said.
The bench further stated “We have earlier referred to the existing philosophy of the day, the purpose of Directive Principles and the speech of Dr. Ambedkar on inequality in the country when the Constitution was being framed. Has our world changed? Has the inequality in the country decreased? There are no definite or easy answers to these questions.”
Quantified Disability Will Not Disentitle Candidate With Benchmark Disability From Being Considered For Admission To Educational Institutions: Supreme Court
Case Title: Omkar Ramchandra Gond v/s The Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court held that quantified disability per se will not disentitle a candidate with benchmark disability from being considered for admission to educational institutions. The candidate will be eligible, if the Disability Assessment Board opines that notwithstanding the quantified disability the candidate can pursue the course in question. The NMC regulations in the notification of 13.05.2019 read with the Appendix H-1 should, pending the re-formulation by NMC, be read in the light of the holdings in this judgment.
“Caste” Column And Any References To Caste In Undertrial And/Or Convicts’ Prisoners’ Registers Inside Prisons Shall Be Deleted: Supreme Court
Case Title: Sukanya Shantha v/s Union of India & Ors.
The Supreme Court directed the Union government to make necessary changes, as highlighted in the judgment, to address caste-based discrimination in the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 within a period of three months.
The bench further directed that the “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’ registers inside the prisons shall be deleted.
Trial Of PMLA Offence Not Likely To Complete In Three To Four Years; If Detention Continued, Will Amount To Infringement Of Fundamental Right: Supreme Court
Case Title: V. Senthil Balaji v/s The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court observed that the appellant has been incarcerated for 15 months or more for the offence punishable under the PMLA. In the facts of the case, the trial of the scheduled offences and, consequently, the PMLA offence is not likely to be completed in three to four years or even more. If the appellant’s detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial.
Courts Shall Not Use Term “Child Pornography” In Any Judicial Order Or Judgment, Instead Use “Child Sexual Exploitation And Abuse Material” (CSEAM): Supreme Court
Case Title: Just Rights For Children Alliance & Anr. V/S S. Harish & Ors.
The Supreme Court observed that the Parliament should seriously consider to bring about an amendment to the POCSO for the purpose of substituting the term “child pornography” that with “child sexual exploitation and abuse material” (CSEAM) with a view to reflect more accurately on the reality of such offences. The Union of India, in the meantime may consider to bring about the suggested amendment to the POCSO by way of an ordinance.
Belated Arrest Of Arvind Kejriwal By CBI Unjustified: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal v/s Central Bureau of Investigation
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan viewed that the belated arrest of the appellant by the CBI is unjustified and the continued incarceration of the appellant in the CBI case that followed such arrest has become untenable.
National Task Force to Formulate Effective Recommendations To Remedy The Issues Of Concern Pertaining To Safety, Working Conditions And Well-Being Of Medical Professionals: Supreme Court
Case Title: IN RE: ALLEGED RAPE AND MURDER INCIDENT OF A TRAINEE DOCTOR IN R.G. KAR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, KOLKATA AND RELATED ISSUES
The Supreme Court observed that the NTF shall formulate effective recommendations to remedy the issues of concern pertaining to safety, working conditions and well-being of medical professionals and other cognate matters highlighted in the above segments of this order.
Time For Payment Of Demand Of Tax Shall Be Staggered In Instalments Over A Period Of Twelve Years Commencing From 1 April 2026: Supreme Court
Case Title: Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. v/s M/S Steel Authority of India & Anr Etc.
The Supreme Court stated that while the States may levy or renew demands of tax, if any, pertaining to Entries 49 and 50 of List II of the Seventh Schedule in terms of the law laid down in the decision in MADA the demand of tax shall not operate on transactions made prior to 1 April 2005.
High Time That Trial Courts And High Courts Recognize Principle That “Bail Is Rule And Jail Is Exception”: Supreme Court
Case Title: Manish Sisodia V/S Directorate Of Enforcement
The Supreme Court observed that in the ED matter as well as the CBI matter, 493 witnesses have been named. The case involves thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of digitized documents. It is thus clear that there is not even the remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future.
The bench while granting bail to Manish Sisodia, viewed that, keeping the appellant behind the bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Power Of Nomination Of Persons With Special Knowledge In Municipal Administration Vests With Lt. Governor is Statutory Duty: Supreme Court
Case Title: Government Of Nct Of Delhi V/S Office Of Lieutenant Governor Of Delhi
The bench Opined that Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act is a Parliamentary enactment vesting the power of nomination of persons with special knowledge in municipal administration with the Lt. Governor. The power is to be exercised as a statutory duty of the Lt. Governor and not as the executive power of the Government of NCTD.
Subclassification Of Scheduled Castes Is Permissible In Law For The Purposes Of Reservation: Supreme Court
Case Title: The State of Punjab & Ors. v/s Davinder Singh & Ors.
The Supreme Court reiterated that periodical exercise has to be undertaken to exclude the class of person who after taking advantage of reservation has come to march, shoulder to shoulder with the general category. The bench held that subclassification of scheduled castes is permissible in law for the purposes of reservation.
SBCs cannot charge “enrolment fees” beyond the express legal stipulation under Section 24(1)(f) as it currently stands: Supreme Court
Case Title: Gaurav Kumar v/s Union of India and Ors.
The Supreme Court held that Section 24(1)(f) specifically lays down the fiscal pre-conditions subject to which an advocate can be enrolled on State rolls. The SBCs and the BCI cannot demand payment of fees other than the stipulated enrolment fee and stamp duty, if any, as a pre-condition to enrolment.
Majority Judgment In Kesoram, Is Overruled To The Extent It Holds That Royalty Is Not A Tax: Supreme Court
Case Title: Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. v/s M/S Steel Authority of India & Anr Etc.
The Apex Court ruled that the majority decision in Kesoram is a serious departure from the law laid down by the seven judge Bench in India Cement which was wholly unwarranted and therefore, in the court’s view, the said majority judgment is liable to be overruled and is overruled to the extent of holding that royalty is not a tax.
Union Of India Directed To Evolve A National Policy With Regard To Gm Crops In Realm Of Research, Cultivation, Trade And Commerce In Country: Supreme Court
Case Title: Gene Campaign & Another V/S Union Of India & Others
The Supreme Court directed the respondent-Union of India to evolve a National Policy with regard to GM crops in the realm of research, cultivation, trade and commerce in the country. The said National Policy shall be formulated in consultation with all stakeholders, such as, experts in the field of agriculture, biotechnology, State Governments, representatives of the farmers, etc. The National Policy to be formulated shall be given due publicity.
Supreme Court Clarifies On Requirements For Condonation Of Delay In Filing Appeals, Imposes Rs. 1 Lakh Cost On MP State Govt.
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Ramkumar Choudhary
The Supreme Court has recently issued a significant ruling regarding the condonation of delay in filing appeals.
The bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan has emphasized that a litigant seeking to condone delay must provide a cogent explanation for why the appeal was not filed from the very first day within the limitation period.
Alleged Illegal Capturing Of Lottery Market : Supreme Court Stays Summons Under Section 50 Of PMLA Issued To Martin Santiago And His Company, Future Gaming And Hotels Services
Case Title: Future Gaming And Hotels Services Pvt Ltd. & Anr. Versus Directorate Of Enforcement & Ors.
The Supreme Court has Stays Summons Under Section 50 Of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) issued to Martin Santiago and his company, Future Gaming And Hotels Services.
The bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal while addressing the application filed by Future Gaming And Hotels Services Pvt Ltd. for the grant of interim relief issued an ex-parte ad-interim order directing the Enforcement Directorate not to access and copy the contents of Mobile phone of the and the electronic devices belonging to the employees of the Future Gaming And Hotels Services.
5% GST On Coconut Oil Sold In Small Packages : Supreme Court
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Versus M/s. Madhan Agro Industries (India) Private Ltd.
The Supreme Court while putting an end to the 15-years old dispute held that coconut oil classified edible oil and 5% GST is applicable.
The bench of Chief Justice Of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice R. Mahadevan has observed that pure coconut oil sold in small quantities as ‘edible oil’ would be classifiable under Heading 1513 in Section III-Chapter 15 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, unless the packaging thereof satisfies all the requirements set out in Chapter Note 3 in Section VI-Chapter 33 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, read with the General/Explanatory Notes under the corresponding Chapter Note 3 in Chapter 33 of the Harmonized System of Nomenclature, whereupon it would be classifiable as ‘hair oil’ under Heading 3305 in Section VI- Chapter 33.
Illegal Construction Can’t Be Regularized Irrespective Of Long Occupancy And Investments : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines
Case Title: Rajendra Kumar Barjatya Versus U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.
The Supreme Court while laying the guidelines held that illegal construction can’t be regularized irrespective of long occupancy and investments.
The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan has observed that construction(s) put up in violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by the local authority and the constructions which are audaciously put up without any building planning approval, cannot be encouraged. Each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the Rules.
Supreme Court Sets Deadline For Bail To West Bengal MLA Involved In Money Laundering After Witness Examination
Case Title: Partha Chatterjee Versus Directorate of Enforcement
The Supreme Court sets a deadline for bail to a West Bengal MLA involved in money laundering after examination of witnesses on 01.02.2025.
The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has observed that the Appellant’s prayer for bail must also be juxtaposed against the apprehension of threat to life expressed by the associate in her statement. Having said so, the question of the evidentiary value of the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA has not been addressed at this stage so that no prejudice is caused to parties.
