As the year draws to a close, let’s take a look at some of the most significant judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 2024. From upholding fundamental rights and tackling electoral transparency to reinforcing laws on child protection and environmental justice, this year has witnessed several landmark decisions that will shape the legal landscape for years to come.

January 2024: Quashing of Bilkis Bano convicts’ release

The year began with a major controversy when the Gujarat government’s decision to release 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case was quashed by the Supreme Court. The convicts, who were serving life sentences for the gang-rape of Bilkis Bano and the murder of her family during the 2002 Gujarat riots, were controversially freed under the state’s remission policy. The Supreme Court intervened, emphasising the gravity of the crimes and reinstating justice for the victims, amid widespread criticism of the Gujarat government’s decision.

February 2024: Electoral Bond Scheme declared unconstitutional

In February, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling by declaring the Electoral Bond Scheme unconstitutional. The scheme, which allowed anonymous donations to political parties through bearer bonds, was found to violate the voter’s right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court’s judgment underscored the need for transparency in political funding and called for a more accountable electoral process in India.

March 2024: Lawmakers not immune from bribery prosecution

The apex court issued a significant judgment in March, ruling that lawmakers are not immune from prosecution for accepting bribes. The court overruled a previous judgment that had granted immunity to lawmakers for actions taken within the scope of their legislative duties. This judgment clarified that bribery to influence legislative actions is a serious criminal offence, thus reinforcing accountability among elected representatives.

April 2024: Rejecting full EVM-VVPAT cross-verification

In April, the Supreme Court rejected pleas demanding 100% cross-verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) data with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) records. The court upheld the current practice of random matching of VVPAT slips with EVM results, affirming the robustness of the EVM-VVPAT system and ensuring the integrity of the electoral process.

May: Google maps location sharing as bail condition

In May, the Supreme Court addressed a novel legal question regarding the conditions of bail. In the case of Frank Vitus vs Narcotics Control Bureau, the court ruled that requiring an accused person to share their location via Google Maps as a bail condition was unnecessary and excessive. The court stated that this condition did not aid law enforcement and thus should be removed. It also suggested more reasonable alternatives, such as surrendering passports or reporting regularly to the police station, to ensure the accused’s cooperation with the investigation.

July 2024: Interim bail for Arvind Kejriwal

In July, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to the then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who had been arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement in connection with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The two-judge bench, while granting bail, referred key legal questions regarding the necessity of arrest under Section 19 of PMLA to a larger bench. Kejriwal’s interim bail was subject to strict conditions. 

September: Viewing child sexual exploitation material now punishable under POCSO Act

In September, the Supreme Court examined whether viewing child sexual exploitation and abuse material is punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The court’s ruling strengthened the legal framework against child pornography and reinforced the need to combat such heinous crimes to protect the rights and safety of children across India.

November: Bulldozer justice unconstitutional

The Supreme Court condemned the practice of ‘bulldozer justice’, declaring it unconstitutional. The practice involved the demolition of properties, often targeting marginalised communities, without due process. The court emphasised the importance of upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights, especially of vulnerable groups, against arbitrary state action.

Also read :

Farmers’ protest: SC seeks compliance report from Punjab over Dallewal’s health, safety