WRAP
Checks and balance, judicial independence - apex court's year 2024
This story was originally published at 13:22 IST on 28 December 2024
Register to read our real-time news.Informist, Saturday, Dec. 28, 2024
By Surya Tripathi
NEW DELHI – The art of judging must be free of social and political pressures and the inherent biases which human beings hold, the then chief justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud had said while holding a ceremonial bench to mark 75 years of the Supreme Court of India. An independent judiciary does not merely mean insulation of the institution from the executive and the legislature branches, but also the independence of individual judges in the performance of their roles, Chandrachud had said.
The Supreme Court of India, the apex court in the country, dealt with some high-profile cases in 2024 and held the government accountable on numerous occasions. Be it the constitutional validity of the electoral bond scheme, right to shelter against demolition of properties by state authorities, or immunity from prosecution to legislators in bribery cases, the top court maintained a constant check against the state's power.
Addressing the first Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association Conference in South Goa, Chandrachud said the apex court's responsibility was not to act as an opposition in Parliament. While criticism of the court for legal inconsistencies or errors is acceptable, its role and work should not be judged based on outcomes and nature of cases, Chandrachud had said.
Highlighting the aspect of transparency, the apex court said information about funding political parties was essential for the effective exercise of the choice of voting, striking down the government's electoral bond scheme. The apex court called out the state governments for "high-handed and arbitrary actions" in demolishing the property of a person on the basis that they were accused or convicted in a case. Such excesses at the hands of the executive will have to be dealt with by a heavy hand of the law, the court had said.
Informist looks at some of the important verdicts delivered by the apex court in 2024, which would have ramifications for future generations.
ELECTORAL BOND SCHEME
At the start of the year, the apex court struck down the electoral bond scheme for anonymous political funding, describing it as unconstitutional and leading to quid pro quo. The government had failed to ensure the necessary safeguards to protect the right to information of citizens, it said.
The apex court asked the State Bank of India to immediately stop the sale of the bonds. The court said the public sector bank must share details of the bonds sold since Apr. 12, 2019 with the Election Commission of India, which will put up the data on its official website. It said the electoral bonds that have not been encashed must be returned to SBI.
The top court said that there was a legitimate possibility that financial contributions to a political party would lead to a "quid pro quo" arrangement because of the close nexus between money and politics. "Political contributions give a seat at the table to the contributor... this access also translates into influence over policy making," the apex court had said.
IMMUNITY FOR LEGISLATORS
A seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in March unanimously set aside the 1998 order that granted legislators and lawmakers immunity from prosecution for taking a bribe to speak or vote in Parliament. "Bribery is not rendered immune under Article 105 or 194 (of the Indian Constitution) because a member indulging in bribery, indulges in a criminal act which is not essential for the function of casting a vote or giving a speech in the legislature," said the bench led by the then chief justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
The offence of bribery is crystallised on the taking of illegal gratification, the top court said, adding that it does not depend on whether the vote or speech is given later. "The offence is complete at the point of time when the legislator accepts a bribe," said the apex court. The apex court said that the privilege claimed by the legislators must have a nexus to the collective functioning of the house and a relationship with the essential functions of a legislator that they have to discharge. "We hold that bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege," said the top court.
BAIL TO KEJRIWAL
In a relief to Delhi's former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was arrested by both Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate in Delhi liquor policy case, the top court ordered his release on bail in both the probes. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said the arrest of Kejriwal raised more questions than it answered. Justice Bhuyan said it appeared that only after the trial court granted regular bail to Kejriwal in the enforcement agency's case on Jun. 20, did the CBI become active and sought custody of him.
Justice Bhuyan said the arrest by the CBI was only to frustrate the bail granted to Kejriwal in the Enforcement Directorate's case.
BULLDOZER JUSTICE
The Supreme Court said in November that it was unlawful and unconstitutional if the government and its authorities demolished the property of a person on the basis that they were accused or convicted in a case. The top court said the executive cannot become a judge, and such an act would be called transgression of limits.
"The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where 'might was right'," the Bench said, adding that in the Constitution, which rests on the foundation of "the rule of law", such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place.
Consequently, the apex court laid down guidelines on demolitions to allay fears in the minds of citizens regarding the arbitrary exercise of power by officials of the state. The apex court was hearing petitions against demolitions by state and local authorities without prior notice as a form of retribution.
TAX ON MINES
The Supreme Court in July upheld state governments' power to levy tax on mineral rights and mineral-bearing lands in a majority 8-1 judgement. The bench led by the then chief justice D.Y. Chandrachud held that royalty payable on minerals is not in nature of tax under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
The majority judgement said royalty is a contractual consideration paid by the mining lessor to the lessee. "Payments made to the government cannot be deemed to be a tax merely because a statute provides for its recovery in arrears," Chandrachud said.
Consequently, the apex court in August said its verdict upholding the power of state governments to tax mineral rights and mineral-bearing lands would apply retrospectively. The top court said state governments can levy and renew the demand for taxes, but they shall not operate on transactions made prior to Apr 1, 2005. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said that an order giving retrospective effect to the verdict would lead to a potential demand of INR 700 billion to INR 800 billion for public sector companies.
PRIVATE PROPERTY
The Supreme Court in November ruled that all private properties cannot be considered as "material resource of the community" under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution, and consequently, these cannot be taken over by the state to subserve the common good. Article 39(b) imposes a positive obligation on the State to ensure that the "ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good".
The nine-judge Bench led by Chandrachud, in a majority judgment, said some private properties may come under Article 39(b) provided they are material and belong to the community. The top court rejected the view taken in a minority judgement in 1977 and thereafter, in 1983 and 1997, that all private properties can be acquired by the state for the common good.
Here is a list of cases which favoured the government:
INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL
The Supreme Court in October held that states have the power to levy tax, and regulate the sale, distribution, pricing, and other factors relating to 'industrial' alcohol. In a majority 8-1 judgement, a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chandrachud said that 'industrial alcohol' comes within the meaning of 'intoxicating liquor' under Entry 8 of List II (State List) of the Constitution.
The apex court set aside its 1990 verdict, which had held that intoxicating liquors only referred to potable (drinkable) alcohol. Overturning the 1990 judgement, the court said that the earlier verdict was "wrong".
CASTE SUB-CLASSIFICATION
The Supreme Court in August upheld sub-classification within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of reservation. A seven-judge Constitution Bench led by Chandrachud said that often, members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were not able to climb up the ladder due to systemic discrimination. The court must check if class is homogeneous, and a class not integrated for a purpose can be further classified, the two judges said.
The top court said reservation should be meant for only the first generation among a category. "...if the second generation has come up, then benefits of reservation shall not be given and the state should see if, after reservation, the second generation has come shoulder-to-shoulder with the general category," said the court.
AGR DUES
The Supreme Court in September rejected a batch of curative petitions filed by telecom companies, including Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Vodafone Idea Ltd., against the court's earlier order on adjusted gross revenue calculations. The apex court had earlier rejected their petition for rectification of alleged errors in the calculation of adjusted gross revenue dues payable by the company.
The petitions arose from an order by the top court in 2020, which granted 10 years to telecom companies to clear their adjusted gross revenue dues to the Department of Telecommunications. The apex court had asked telecom companies to pay 10% of the adjusted gross revenue dues upfront. The top court then said that no revaluation of adjusted gross revenue dues would be allowed, and any default would invite interest, penalty, and contempt of court.
The Department of Telecommunications has estimated Bharti Airtel's dues at 439.80 bln rupees, way higher than the company's estimate of 130.04 bln rupees. The department has estimated Vodafone Idea's dues at 582.54 bln rupees compared with the company's assessment of 215.33 bln rupees.
There were some human interest cases, too, where the top court's ruling may lay a roadmap for the government for reforms in some sectors:
NEET CASE
The Supreme Court in July refused to cancel the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate) exam. The court said that the data on record was not indicative of a systemic leak of the medical entrance test question paper, which would indicate a disruption of the sanctity of the exam.
However, the Supreme Court said that the National Testing Agency must avoid "flip-flops" it made in relation to the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate) exam and the Centre should rectify the issues which arose in the exam this year itself so that it is not repeated. The court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking cancellation of the entire medical entrance test exam, re-test for a fair-and-secure exam, and investigation into the alleged irregularities in this year's entrance test.
RG KAR case
Observing that the nation cannot wait for another rape for things to change on ground, the Supreme Court in August formed a national task force to make recommendations on safety and working conditions of the medical professionals. Taking a suo motu cognisance of the rape and murder of a junior doctor at a medical college in Kolkata, the Supreme Court also came down heavily on the West Bengal administration for its handling of the matter.
The top court said that the task force shall prepare an action plan to prevent gender-based violence and ensure dignified working of interns, resident and non-resident doctors. A 31-year-old junior doctor was found dead at a seminar hall at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata on Aug 9. Police had, thereafter, arrested a civic volunteer in connection with the case. There were protests and strikes by doctors in several cities in the country over the case. On Aug 13, the Calcutta High Court had transferred the probe into the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation. End
Edited by Deepshikha Bhardwaj
For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.
Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd, a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt Ltd.
Informist Media Tel +91 (11) 4220-1000
Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com
© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2024. All rights reserved.
To read more please subscribe
Share this Story:
