New Delhi, Dec 29: 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 DY Chandrachud (now retired) and comprising Justices BR Gavai, Sanjiv Khanna, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, had directed the 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 Sc judge into an alleged scam 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 PV 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 SCs 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”.
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 at the district level. (IANS)