Top 5 landmark judgement of supreme court of India

1. Supreme Court Upholds Directive Principles, Balances Socio-Economic Justice with Fundamental Rights in Landmark Judgment

Summary:

The Supreme Court of India delivered a monumental judgment addressing constitutional questions surrounding Article 31-C and Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution. The case, spanning decades and involving multiple references to larger benches, has far-reaching implications for legislative immunity, the balance between individual rights and state welfare, and the scope of judicial review in constitutional matters.

Background:

The case originated from a challenge to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act), specifically its Chapter VIII-A provisions that allowed for the acquisition and reconstruction of dilapidated buildings in Mumbai. The petitioners, including property owners, contended that the provisions were unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 19 (Right to Freedom). The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, defended the law, arguing it was protected by Article 31-C of the Constitution, which grants immunity to laws enacted to further the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), specifically Article 39(b).

The legal questions presented were twofold: whether Article 31-C, in its original unamended form, survives after the amendments introduced by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment were struck down in Minerva Mills v. Union of India; and whether Article 39(b), which speaks of distributing material resources for the common good, includes privately-owned resources within its ambit.

Key Legal Questions and Analysis:

1. Does Article 31-C survive after the invalidation of the 42nd Amendment?

Article 31-C, introduced by the 25th Constitutional Amendment in 1971, immunized laws promoting the principles specified in Article 39(b) and 39(c) from challenges based on Articles 14 and 19. The 42nd Amendment expanded this protection to all Directive Principles in Part IV of the Constitution, but this expansion was struck down as unconstitutional in Minerva Mills for violating the basic structure doctrine.

The petitioners contended that the original unamended Article 31-C could not revive after being replaced by the 42nd Amendment. They relied on the "pen and ink" theory, arguing that once text is replaced, it ceases to exist and cannot be revived unless explicitly re-enacted by the legislature.

The respondents countered that invalidating an amendment restores the pre-amended position, a principle supported by precedent. They argued that the revival of the unamended Article 31-C is essential to uphold the basic structure of the Constitution and ensure continuity in constitutional jurisprudence.

The Court concluded that the original Article 31-C, as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, survives the invalidation of the 42nd Amendment. This interpretation aligns with the principle of continuity in constitutional law and affirms the validity of legislative immunity provided to laws enacted under Article 39(b) and 39(c).

2. Does Article 39(b) include privately-owned resources?

Article 39(b) directs the state to ensure the distribution of material resources of the community to subserve the common good. A contentious issue was whether "material resources of the community" encompasses privately-owned resources or is limited to publicly-owned assets.

The petitioners argued that including privately-owned resources within Article 39(b) would lead to arbitrary state action and conflict with the right to property. They contended that judicial precedents relied on a misinterpretation of Article 39(b), conflating public and private resources.

The respondents defended the broader interpretation, emphasizing that the Directive Principles aim to establish a welfare state and prioritize socio-economic justice over individual property rights. They cited previous judgments, such as Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., which adopted an expansive reading of Article 39(b).

The Court revisited its precedents and adopted a balanced approach. It held that Article 39(b) includes resources that, by their nature or use, are intended to serve the community. This could encompass privately-owned resources if their regulation or redistribution aligns with the Directive Principles and serves a public purpose. However, such measures must satisfy constitutional safeguards, including reasonableness and proportionality.

Conclusions and Implications:

1. Revival of Article 31-C:

The Court reaffirmed the validity of the unamended Article 31-C, ensuring the constitutional protection of laws enacted to implement the principles in Article 39(b) and 39(c). This decision reaffirms the balance between individual rights and state objectives under the DPSPs.

2. Interpretation of Article 39(b):

By recognizing that privately-owned resources may fall under Article 39(b), the Court clarified the scope of the state's redistributive powers. However, it imposed safeguards to prevent arbitrary state action, emphasizing the need for fairness and public purpose.

3. Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles:

The judgment highlights the Constitution's dual commitment to protecting individual rights and promoting socio-economic welfare. It underscores that neither is absolute and both must coexist harmoniously within the framework of constitutional values.

4. Future Legislative and Judicial Action:

The judgment sets a clear precedent for interpreting similar provisions in other laws and upholds the judiciary's role in ensuring that state actions under the guise of Article 39(b) comply with constitutional principles.

Impact:

This landmark ruling will significantly influence laws addressing socio-economic reforms, particularly those involving property rights and resource distribution. It affirms the judiciary's pivotal role in interpreting constitutional provisions and balancing competing values. While upholding the state's welfare objectives, the Court ensures that such measures remain tethered to constitutional safeguards, thereby preserving the Constitution's basic structure.

2. Supreme Court Clarifies Minority Status of Aligarh Muslim University.

In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the long-standing debate over the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The judgment, delivered by a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, analyzed AMU's history, constitutional provisions, and relevant case law to decide whether the institution qualifies as a minority educational institution under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution.

Historical and Legal Context

AMU traces its origins to the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, established in 1877 in Aligarh. The institution evolved into a university with the enactment of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. This Act was later amended in 1951, 1965, and 1981, each amendment impacting AMU’s governance and its claim to minority status.

In the landmark case S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India (1968), a Constitution Bench ruled that AMU was established by legislation, not by the Muslim minority community, and hence did not qualify for protection under Article 30. Subsequent amendments to the AMU Act, particularly in 1981, aimed to restore the university's minority status. However, these changes were challenged in courts, with critics arguing they attempted to overrule judicial precedent.

Key Issues Before the Court

The recent ruling focused on three critical questions:

Establishment and Administration: Does an institution need to be both established and administered by a minority community to claim protection under Article 30?

Participation of Other Communities: Can an institution established with the participation of other communities qualify as a minority institution?

Impact of Registration: Does registering as a society under the Societies Registration Act alter an institution’s minority status?

Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Bench examined the interplay of Articles 25 to 30, which safeguard religious, cultural, and educational rights. Article 30 guarantees minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The Court emphasized that these rights must be interpreted in light of the principles of substantive equality and the need to preserve the cultural and educational rights of minorities.

The Court reaffirmed the conjunctive reading of the terms "establish" and "administer" in Article 30, as established in Azeez Basha. It held that minority communities could only claim protection if they played a foundational role in establishing the institution. The judgment also clarified that Article 30 extends to both secular and religious education, allowing minorities to maintain their cultural identity while contributing to the nation’s educational framework.

Impact on AMU

The Court ruled that AMU’s status as a minority institution could not be established solely on the basis of legislative amendments. The judgment reiterated that AMU was founded by an Act of Parliament in 1920 and not directly by the Muslim minority. Therefore, the university does not qualify for the special rights accorded under Article 30.

Broader Implications

The ruling has significant implications for educational institutions claiming minority status across India. It establishes a rigorous standard for determining minority character, emphasizing both establishment and administration by the minority community. The judgment also underscores the balance between preserving minority rights and ensuring compliance with constitutional principles, such as equality and non-discrimination.

Reactions

The decision has sparked diverse reactions. Supporters hail it as a reinforcement of constitutional principles, while critics argue it undermines the historical and cultural significance of AMU as a minority institution. Legal scholars anticipate that the judgment will serve as a benchmark in future disputes concerning minority educational rights.

As the legal debate continues, the judgment marks a defining moment in the interpretation of constitutional rights for minority communities, reaffirming the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of the Constitution

3. Supreme Court Upholds Section 6A of the Citizenship Act: Implications for Assam and Beyond

The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment on the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, a provision central to granting citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, along with a Constitution Bench, addressed challenges to the provision’s compatibility with constitutional rights and its broader implications for India’s federal and multicultural framework.

Historical Context

Section 6A was introduced through the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, as part of the Assam Accord. The provision classified migrants based on their arrival dates and established a framework for granting citizenship, particularly to those arriving before March 25, 1971, from Bangladesh. The legislative amendment aimed to address the complex demographic changes in Assam post-partition and the influx of migrants during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War.

The petitioners argued that Section 6A violated several constitutional provisions, including Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355, and questioned Parliament's authority to legislate on the matter without amending the Constitution itself.

Key Issues and Findings

1. Legislative Competence

The Court examined whether Parliament had the authority to enact Section 6A under Article 11, which empowers it to regulate citizenship. The judgment clarified that while Articles 5 to 10 of the Constitution outline citizenship provisions at the commencement of the Constitution, Article 11 grants Parliament broad legislative powers for citizenship laws. The Court held that Section 6A does not amend Articles 6 and 7 but operates independently, addressing a distinct class of migrants beyond the Constitution’s original temporal scope.

2. Equality and Article 14

The petitioners contended that Section 6A discriminates by applying to Assam exclusively and prescribing a distinct cut-off date compared to the rest of India. The Court found this differentiation justified due to Assam’s unique demographic challenges and its status as a border state directly affected by migration from Bangladesh.

3. Cultural Identity and Article 29

Concerns about the erosion of Assamese cultural identity were raised under Article 29, which protects minorities' rights to conserve their culture. While acknowledging the issue's sensitivity, the Court held that the legislative measures under Section 6A struck a balance between preserving Assamese identity and fulfilling humanitarian obligations towards migrants.

4. National Security and Article 355

The petitioners argued that the influx of migrants constituted "external aggression" under Article 355, mandating the Union to protect Assam. The Court disagreed, noting that the provision aims to address migration through legal and administrative frameworks rather than viewing it as a security threat.

Implications

The judgment reinforces Parliament’s authority to legislate on citizenship while respecting the Constitution's framework. By upholding Section 6A, the Court addressed Assam's specific socio-political realities without undermining constitutional principles.

Reactions and Next Steps

The ruling has evoked mixed reactions. While some see it as a pragmatic approach to a complex issue, others fear it may dilute Assam’s cultural and political landscape. Experts emphasize the need for careful implementation to ensure fairness and inclusivity.

This judgment sets a significant precedent for addressing regional challenges through legislative solutions while adhering to constitutional values. As Assam navigates the aftermath, the focus will shift to administrative measures, including updating the National Register of Citizens (NRC) to reflect the Court’s directives.

4. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling on Demolitions: Safeguards Citizens’ Right to Due Process.

News Piece:

In a significant judgment dated September 2024, the Supreme Court of India addressed the contentious issue of demolitions conducted without due process of law, particularly targeting properties of individuals accused of criminal activities. The ruling, issued by a bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai, emphasized the constitutional principles of the rule of law, separation of powers, and public accountability, marking a watershed moment in safeguarding the rights of affected citizens.

Background

The case arose from multiple writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. These petitions highlighted grievances where state authorities demolished residential and commercial properties of individuals accused of crimes, without adhering to the legal procedure. The petitioners sought the Court’s intervention to halt such actions and demanded accountability for erring officials.

The Court had earlier issued an interim order prohibiting demolitions nationwide without its prior approval, barring exceptions such as illegal constructions on public land. This temporary measure was later extended as the Court deliberated on guidelines for ensuring fairness in such cases.

Core Issues Addressed

The judgment revolved around critical legal and constitutional questions:

Whether demolitions carried out as punitive actions against accused individuals violated the constitutional guarantee of due process.

Whether such actions infringed upon fundamental rights, including the right to shelter and the right to equality under Articles 14 and 21.

Key Observations and Findings

Rule of Law

The Court underscored the principle that no individual can be deprived of property without adherence to legal procedure. Justice Gavai highlighted that actions by the executive must align with the law and cannot bypass judicial scrutiny.

The Court referred to landmark precedents emphasizing that the rule of law serves as a safeguard against arbitrary state actions. Justice Gavai quoted Lord Denning, stating that even the “poorest man” in his home is entitled to legal protection from the state’s arbitrary actions.

Separation of Powers

The judgment reaffirmed the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, stressing that the judiciary alone holds adjudicatory power. Actions by executive authorities, such as demolitions, cannot replace judicial determinations of guilt. The Court deemed such measures unconstitutional and incompatible with democratic governance.

Public Accountability

Acknowledging the doctrine of public trust, the Court emphasized that state officials act as trustees of public power and must adhere to principles of fairness and accountability. Arbitrary demolitions, often carried out in bad faith, erode this trust and violate the rights of affected individuals.

Demolition Guidelines

The Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to regulate demolitions across India. These include:

Issuance of Notice: Authorities must serve a show-cause notice to property owners, outlining specific violations and granting adequate time for response. Notices must be personally delivered, published in newspapers, and uploaded on official websites.

Opportunity for Hearing: Property owners must be granted the right to a fair hearing, including presenting evidence and exploring options for regularization or compounding violations.

Proportionality of Action: Demolitions should be a last resort. Authorities must consider less intrusive measures, such as partial removal or penalties, wherever applicable.

Transparency and Documentation: All demolition orders must clearly state reasons, specify the illegal portion of the property, and provide sufficient time for occupants to vacate. The process must be video-recorded to ensure compliance with guidelines.

Accountability for Malpractice: Erring officials involved in illegal demolitions will face disciplinary action, including salary deductions to compensate victims for damages.

Rights of the Accused and Right to Shelter

The Court strongly defended the constitutional rights of accused individuals. It held that demolitions as punitive measures—targeting accused individuals and their families—violated the presumption of innocence and natural justice. Moreover, it highlighted that the right to shelter, protected under Article 21, is essential for human dignity and cannot be infringed arbitrarily.

Conclusion and Impact

The Supreme Court’s ruling is a monumental step in safeguarding citizens from arbitrary demolitions and ensuring accountability in state actions. By mandating strict adherence to due process and fair procedures, the judgment not only protects property rights but also upholds fundamental democratic values.

5. Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bond Scheme: A Victory for Transparency and Voter Rights

Background

On February 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of India declared the Electoral Bond Scheme unconstitutional. In a landmark decision, the Constitutional Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra determined that the scheme violated voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The scheme had been controversial since its inception, criticized for undermining transparency in political funding and enabling issues like quid pro quo arrangements, corruption, and backdoor lobbying.

What Was the Electoral Bond Scheme of 2018?

Introduced on January 2, 2018, by the Ministry of Finance, the Electoral Bond Scheme allowed donations to political parties through anonymous financial instruments issued by the State Bank of India (SBI). Functioning like promissory notes, these bonds could be purchased by donors without disclosing their identity and redeemed by eligible political parties through SBI. There was no limit on the number of bonds a person or entity could buy.

Before this scheme, Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013, governed political donations by companies, imposing conditions such as:

A cap of 7.5% of a company’s average net profits over the preceding three years.

Approval through a board resolution.

Mandatory disclosure of the recipient political party in the company's profit and loss account.

The Finance Act, 2017, amended this section, removing the cap on corporate donations and the requirement to disclose the beneficiary political parties.

Challenges to the Scheme’s Constitutionality

The Association for Democratic Reforms filed a writ petition in 2017, initiating legal challenges to the Electoral Bond Scheme. The petition argued that the anonymity of the scheme weakened transparency in political funding, infringing upon voters' right to information. Several other cases followed, with the Election Commission of India (ECI) also opposing the scheme, highlighting its detrimental impact on transparency in political financing.

What Did the Supreme Court Rule?

The Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme as unconstitutional, addressing two pivotal issues:

Whether the anonymity of donations under the scheme and amendments to various financial laws violated voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Whether the removal of limits on corporate funding to political parties under Section 182 of the Companies Act violated the principles of free and fair elections under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Violation of Right to Information Under Article 19(1)(a)

The Court ruled that the scheme violated voters' right to information by disproportionately restricting their ability to know the source of political party funding, which is integral to making an informed electoral choice.

The Court found that the scheme’s objective of curbing black money, cited as a justification, could not be linked to any reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). Additionally, the scheme failed the proportionality test, as alternative measures like Electoral Trusts could achieve the same goal without infringing voters' rights. The Court recommended transparency measures such as maintaining records of donors’ names, addresses, account details, and contributions, as well as limiting transactions to electronic modes.

Arbitrary Corporate Funding Amendments

The Court declared the amendments to Section 182 of the Companies Act arbitrary for allowing unlimited corporate donations from both profit- and loss-making entities. It found this change problematic for two reasons:

Corporates, with their vast financial resources, could wield disproportionate influence over policymaking compared to individual voters.

Treating corporates and individuals equally in this context undermined fairness.

The Court further observed that allowing loss-making companies to make political donations opened avenues for illicit financial exchanges in return for political favors. The unlimited nature of these contributions violated the principles of free and fair elections and the democratic ideal of “one person, one vote.”

Court Directions

In quashing the scheme and related amendments, the Court issued several directives:

The State Bank of India (SBI) must cease issuing electoral bonds immediately.

SBI must provide the Election Commission of India (ECI) with details of electoral bonds purchased since April 12, 2019, including donor identities and bond denominations.

SBI must disclose which political parties received contributions through the scheme.

Bonds within their 15-day validity that have not been encashed must be returned to the purchasers.

The ECI must publish all disclosed information on its official website by March 13, 2024.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Electoral Bond Scheme is a milestone in upholding transparency and the voters' right to information. By reinforcing the need for accountability in political funding, the ruling paves the way for more transparent and fair electoral processes in India.