Key Constitution Bench Decisions of 2024

In 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered 12 major Constitution Bench judgments, covering a wide range of legal and constitutional matters. These cases were decided by five-, seven-, and nine-judge benches. The year stands out due to its high level of judicial activity compared to previous years.

Summary of each significant decision made in 2024:

1. Constitutionality of the Electoral Bonds Scheme (5-judge bench)

• Case: Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India
• Key Point: The Court struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, which allowed anonymous political donations. The Court ruled that the right to privacy of donors cannot outweigh voters' right to information about who is funding political parties. The practice of "unlimited corporate funding" was found to promote quid pro quo relationships between donors and political parties.
  • Electoral Bonds were introduced in 2018 to allow anonymous donations to political parties.

2. Automatic Vacation of Stay Orders (5-judge bench)

• Case: High Court Bar Association Allahabad v The State of Uttar Pradesh
• Key Point: The Supreme Court clarified that stay orders do not automatically lapse after six months unless extended by a subsequent order. This decision overruled a previous judgment (2018) that imposed an automatic timeline. The Court emphasized that vacating stay orders should be a judicial discretion, not a mechanical process.

3. Legislative Immunity for Accepting Bribes (7-judge bench)

• Case: Sita Soren v Union of India
• Key Point: The Supreme Court overruled a 1998 decision that granted immunity to legislators from prosecution for bribery tied to their speeches or votes in Parliament. The Court held that bribery undermines democracy and should not be protected by immunity.
  • Legislative immunity traditionally protected legislators from prosecution for actions related to speeches or votes made in the legislature.

4. States' Power to Tax Mines and Minerals (9-judge bench)

• Case: Mineral Area Development Authority v Steel Authority of India
• Key Point: The Court ruled that royalty payments made by miners to landowners are not considered taxes under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. States are allowed to levy taxes on mines and minerals. This decision overruled a 1989 judgment and clarified that royalty is not the same as a tax.
• Royalties refer to the fees paid to the owner of a product in exchange for the right to use that product.
• Royalties are based on specific contracts or agreements between the mining leaseholder and the lessor (the person who leases the property) who can even be a private party.
• Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDRA) requires those who obtain leases to conduct mining activities to “pay royalty in respect of any mineral removed” to the individual or corporation who leased the land to them.
• Under the State List, states are given the exclusive power to make laws relating to “Taxes on mineral rights subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development” (Entry 50).

5. Validity of Sub-Classification Within Reserved Categories (7-judge bench)

• Case: State of Punjab v Davinder Singh
• Key Point: The Court upheld the power of states to create sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) categories. This judgment stated that sub-classification was valid as it does not alter the Presidential List of SCs and STs. However, one judge dissented, arguing that it violated Article 14 (Right to Equality).

6. Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (5-judge bench)

• Case: In re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955
• Key Point: The Court upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which grants citizenship to migrants who entered Assam from Bangladesh before March 1971. The Court ruled that the law did not alter Assam’s culture, but a judge dissented, arguing that the provision had become unconstitutional over time due to delayed implementation.
  • Section 6A of the Citizenship Act grants Indian citizenship to those who migrated from Bangladesh to Assam before March 1971.

7. States' Power to Regulate Industrial Alcohol (9-judge bench)

• Case: State of Uttar Pradesh v Lalta Prasad Vaish
• Key Point: The Court upheld that state governments can regulate industrial alcohol under Entry 8 of the State List, meaning they have jurisdiction over industrial alcohol, not just potable liquor. This decision overturned a 1989 ruling that limited intoxicating liquor to alcoholic beverages for consumption.

8. Nature of Private Property (9-judge bench)

• Case: Property Owners Association v State of Maharashtra
• Key Point: The Court ruled that not all privately owned property qualifies as a material resource of the community under Article 39(b). It upheld that private property cannot be considered a community resource unless it serves a larger public good. One judge dissented, arguing that all private property is a material resource of the community.

9. Validity of Light Motor Vehicle Licence to Drive Transport Vehicles (5-judge bench)

• Case: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance v Rambha Devi
• Key Point: The Court ruled that a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) licence allows the holder to drive transport vehicles weighing less than 7500 kg, without requiring a separate licence. However, a separate licence is required for vehicles like e-rickshaws or those carrying hazardous goods.

10. Altering Rules for Appointment to Public Posts (5-judge bench)

• Case: Tej Prakash Pathak v Rajasthan High Court
• Key Point: The Court ruled that public sector employers cannot alter recruitment rules after the process has begun. This was in response to a case where the Rajasthan High Court introduced a cut-off after the recruitment process had started. The Court emphasized that recruitment processes must adhere to established rules and constitutional principles.

11. Aligarh Muslim University’s Minority Status (7-judge bench)

• Case: Aligarh Muslim University v Naresh Agarwal
• Key Point: The Supreme Court overruled a 1967 judgment and granted minority status to Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The Court also laid down new criteria to determine what constitutes a minority institution under Article 30 of the Constitution. This marks a significant shift in recognizing institutions based on their establishment by a minority community.
• Minority Institutions: According to Section 2(g) of the National Commission for Minority Education Institution Act, a minority institution means a college or institution (other than a university) established or maintained by a person or group of person from amongst the minority.
• Constitutional provisions: The Constitution provides for the cultural and educational rights of the minorities under Article 29 and 30.
  • Article 29 is general protection to the minorities to conserve their language etc. It protects the rights only of the Indian citizens.
  • Article 30 deals explicitly with the rights of the minorities to establish institutions of their choice.

12. Appointment of Arbitrators by Ineligible Persons (5-judge bench)

• Case: Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v ECL-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV)
• Key Point: The Court ruled that arbitration clauses providing for unilateral appointments to the arbitral tribunal are invalid. The Court emphasized that all parties in an arbitration process must be treated equally, and unilateral appointments violate Article 14 (Right to Equality). However, some judges dissented, saying that arbitration laws should be governed by the Arbitration Act, not constitutional principles.