2024 Monsoon Session Review

This is a review of the Supreme Court Monsoon Session from 8 July to 30 September 2024. 

Even as the bright colours of summer turned into the sober greys of monsoon, the Supreme Court did not slow down. In its first week back after the seven-week summer break, Division Benches of the Court delivered a flurry of decisions. 

There were two significant Constitution Bench decisions this quarter, both in favour of states’ decision-making powers. A nine-judge bench upheld states’ power to levy royalty and tax on mineral-bearing land. A seven-judge bench upheld the states’ powers to create sub-classifications within the reserved categories. 

What also stood out this session was the Court’s suo moto action in a variety of cases—disciplinary action against High Court judges, protection of adolescents’ right to privacy and the Kolkata rape and murder case. 

Notably, during the last three months, the Supreme Court also granted bail to several political leaders in cases relating to crimes under special statutes. Division Benches reiterated that jail is the rule and bail is the exception even in Prevention of Money Laundering Act cases, indicating a shift of jurisprudence since its strict interpretation of the law in Vijay Madanlal (2022). 

In this review, we summarise the key decisions, hearings, institutional changes and headlines from the Court. 

Note: The Supreme Court does not have an official session calendar. For analytical clarity, we at the Supreme Court Observer have divided it into four sessions: Spring (January to March), Summer (April to June), Monsoon (July to September), and Winter (October to December).

Quick facts

Working days

The Supreme Court worked for 55 days between 8 July 2024 and 30 September. From 1 to 7 July, the Court was still on its seven-week summer break which commenced on 20 May 2024. 

Quorum

In the Monsoon Session, the Court functioned with the full sanctioned strength of 34 judges only in August. Two judges were elevated in July and one retired in September. 

Appointments and retirements

July opened with two vacancies after Justices Aniruddha Bose and A.S. Boppana retired in April and May respectively. Justices N. Kostishwar Singh and R. Mahadevan were elevated to fill the vacancies on 18 July 2024. 

After serving a tenure of three years, Justice Hima Kohli retired on 1 September, leaving only two women judges at the top court. The Monsoon Session ended with one vacancy at the Court. 

Constitution Bench Decisions

• States’ power to tax mines and minerals—nine-judge bench—judgement delivered on 25 July 2024.
• Retrospective application of the mineral taxation judgement—nine-judge bench—order delivered on 14 August 2024.
• Sub-classification within SC/ST categories—seven-judge bench—judgement delivered on 1 August 2024.

Constitution Bench Hearings

• Validity of a Light Motor Vehicle licence—five-judge bench—judgement reserved on 21 August 2024.
• Appointment of an arbitrator by an ineligible person—five-judge bench—judgement reserved on 30 August 2024. 

Pendency

• 35 five-judge matters are pending, with 274 tagged matters. 
• 7 seven-judge matters with 37 tagged petitions.
• 7 nine-judge matters with 136 tagged petitions.

Total Pendency: 83,100 cases

Note: This data was collected from the National Judicial Data Grid on 30 September 2024.

Constitution Bench decisions

Tectonic shift in taxation

In late July, nine judges assembled to deliver the verdict in a long-pending case. The key constitutional question: can state governments tax mines and minerals? The Court also had to clarify if ‘royalty’ was in the nature of a tax. The bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had reserved judgement in the case on 14 March after hearing the case for eight days. 

In an 8:1 majority, the bench confirmed that only states have the power to tax mineral-bearing land and that royalty is not a tax. The majority relied on the “fiscal federalism” of the Seventh Schedule to justify its stance. Fiscal federalism acknowledges that there is a strategic allocation of powers to ensure that each tier of government has the means to fulfil its role. A few days later, the bench also clarified that its decision would apply retrospectively from 1 April 2005, paving the way for states to demand arrears amounting to an estimated ₹ 1.5 trillion. 

The judgement was welcomed as a “big win” for mineral-rich states as it opened up a new avenue for revenue. However, in her sole dissent, Justice B.V. Nagarathna cautioned that the decision could lead to uneven wealth distribution amongst states and kickstart a “race to the bottom.” 

Judges: D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Hrishikesh Roy J, A.S. Oka J, B.V. Nagarathna J, J.B. Pardiwala J, Manoj Misra J, Ujjal Bhuyan J, S.C. Sharma J, A.G. Masih J

Quick Links: SCO’s case page | Judgement summary | Judgement matrix | Commentary

Sub-classification for ‘substantive equality’

On 1 August, a seven-judge bench upheld the validity of sub-classification within the reserved Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe categories in a 6:1 majority. In doing so, the bench reversed the Court’s 20-year-old decision in E.V. Chinnaiah, which had held that sub-classification was impermissible as it would amount to tinkering of the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes, notified under Article 341 of the Constitution. 

The majority, led by the Chief Justice, reasoned that individual castes within the Presidential List could be facing greater disadvantages than others, due to differing social histories and economic circumstances. Scheduled Castes, the majority said, were not a uniform group. Therefore, carving out a new quota was necessary to ensure “substantive equality” and adequate representation of the most backwards amongst the SCs. 

The bench also stated that any state law creating sub-classification had to be based on empirical evidence and would be subject to judicial review. In a separate, concurring opinion, Justice B.R. Gavai endorsed the application of the creamy layer exception to SC/ST groups. Justice Gavai’s opinion was endorsed by Justices Vikram Nath,  S.C. Sharma and Pankaj Mithal, sparking debate. However, the Union cabinet was quick to clarify that it would not extend the creamy layer distinction of the OBC category to the SC/ST categories. 

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Bela Trivedi noted that sub-classification was impermissible because it would amount to tinkering with the Presidential List.  

Judges: D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, B.R. Gavai J, Vikram Nath J, B.M. Trivedi J, Pankaj Mithal J, Manoj Misra J, S.C. Sharma J

Quick Links: SCO’s case page | Judgement Summary | Judgement Matrix | Expert Commentary | Must Reads | Post-judgement interview

Constitution Bench hearings

Licence to drive

On 21 August, a five-judge bench led by the Chief reserved judgement in a case to decide if persons holding a Light Motor Vehicle License under the Motor Vehicles Act are eligible to drive a transport vehicle weighing less than 7500 kgs. The case has been heard by the Court on seven separate occasions since July 2023. Several times, the Union sought an adjournment in light of the upcoming amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The decision of the Court could have significant implications on livelihoods, especially for gig economy workers. 

Judges: D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Hrishikesh Roy J, P.S. Narasimha J, Pankaj Mithal J, Manoj Misra J

Quick Link: SCO’s case page 

Can’t arbitrate, but can appoint?

In this case, the substantive question before the five-judge bench was whether a person who is ineligible to be an arbitrator has the right to appoint another person as an arbitrator. The bench will also consider whether a party can unilaterally create a panel from which the arbitrators are selected. 

The case is expected to clarify the scope of party autonomy under India’s arbitration law. The decision is likely to impact dispute resolution in connection with contracts where Public Sector Undertakings are a party. Usually, PSUs have a panel of arbitrators from which the parties must pick the panel. 

Judges: D.Y. Chandrachud CJI, Hrishikesh Roy J, P.S. Narasimha J, Pankaj Mithal J, Manoj Misra J

Quick Link: SCO’s case page

Notable Division Bench decisions

NEET and untidy

A case that dominated the news cycle at the beginning of the Monsoon Session was the alleged paper leak of the 2024 NEET UG examination. From 8 July, a three-judge bench began hearing over 20 petitions seeking varying degrees of relief. Some sought a complete cancellation of the examination while others pleaded for individual retests. The Court livestreamed the proceedings, given that they potentially impacted the careers of over 24 lakh students. It ordered the National Testing Agency to publish centre-wise data and examined individual cases of alleged fraud and mismanagement due to the involvement of private operators. 

Even as it acknowledged that the leak was an “undisputed fact,” the Court refused to cancel the 2024 exam after three days of hearings. They reasoned that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the leak was “systemic” and large-scale. In August, the Court issued directions to a High-Powered Committee to strengthen exam management. On 24 September, the Union approached the Court seeking additional time till 21 October for the Committee to submit its report. 

A season of bails

Division Benches of the Court also granted bail to several Opposition political leaders who had been in custody for months due to arrests by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). 

1. Arvind Kejriwal (ED case): In its first week back from summer vacation, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal from his arrest by the ED. Kejriwal was arrested by the ED in March for his alleged involvement in the Delhi Liquor Policy scam. On 12 July, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta granted him interim bail again and referred the legal question on the validity of arrest to a larger bench. 
2. Hemanth Soren: On 29 July, a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan upheld the Jharkhand High Court’s grant of interim bail to CM Hemanth Soren. Soren was arrested by the ED in January this year for his alleged involvement in a land scam. Rejecting the ED’s appeal, the top court noted that the High Court’s decision was “well-reasoned”. 
3. Manish Sisodia: On 9 August, the Court granted bail to Delhi’s former Deputy CM and AAP leader Manish Sisodia. The CBI and the ED had arrested Sisodia under charges of corruption and money laundering for his alleged involvement in the Delhi Liquor Policy Scam. At the time of his release, he had been in custody for 17 months. 
4. Prem Prakash: On 28 August, the Gavai-Viswanathan bench granted interim bail to Prem Prakash, an aide of Hemant Soren, in a PMLA case. In this case, it reiterated its stance from the Sisodia judgement: “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.” 
5. Arvind Kejriwal (CBI case): On 13 September, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan granted bail to Kejriwal from his arrest by the CBI for charges of corruption in the Delhi Liquor Policy scam. The CBI had arrested Kejriwal a fortnight before the Justice Khanna-led bench granted him interim bail in his ED case. While both judges agreed on Kejriwal’s bail, they were split on the validity of the arrest. Justice Kant found the arrest valid whereas Justice Bhuyan expressed reservations about its timing. 
6. Senthil Balaji: On 26 September, a bench of Justices A.S. Oka and A.G. Masih granted bail to former Tamil Nadu transport minister and DMK leader Senthil Balaji from his arrest by the ED in a PMLA case. The bench observed that Balaji was under incarceration for 15 months and that the PMLA  does not allow incarceration for an unreasonably long period of time with no possibility of a trial.

The decisions indicate that the Court may be softening its restrictive interpretation of the bail provisions in special criminal statutes like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. We’ve tracked the evolution of the Court’s PMLA jurisprudence since its 2022 decision in Vijay Madanlal here.

Child safety net

Two landmark judgements widened the scope of children’s rights under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). 

On 20 August, a bench of Justices Oka and Bhuyan held that having consensual sex with a minor would not be an exception under POCSO. The Court had taken suo moto cognisance of the case. The decision overturned a Calcutta High Court judgement from last year. The bench also came down on the High Court for making sexist “personal opinions” in its judgement and advising adolescent girls to control their “sexual urges”. Read more here. 

On 23 September, a Division Bench of CJI Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala held that viewing, possession and storage of material depicting minors engaged in sexual activity constitutes an offence under POCSO. The decision, authored by Justice Pardiwala, overturned a judgement of the Madras High Court. The bench also noted that the term “child pornography” trivialises the crime and recommended the use of the term “child sexual exploitation and abuse material” (CSEAM). Read more here. 

High, not Supreme

This year, the top court has constituted several Special Benches and taken suo moto action to exercise its supervisory role over other judicial institutions. From the Monsoon Session, two such instances stand out. On 7 August, a special five-judge bench expunged the observations made against the top court by Justice Rajbir Sehrawat of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Justice Sehrawat had issued an Order indicating his dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decision to stay ongoing contempt proceedings before his bench. Read more here. 

In September, a five-judge bench took suo moto action against remarks made by Justice V. Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court. The judge had referred to a locality in Bengaluru with a Muslim-majority population as “Pakistan.” Later, in August 2024, he was seen making objectionable remarks against a woman advocate appearing before him. Video clips of his comments went viral. The Special Bench cautioned against personal bias and decided to close the case after Justice Srishananda tendered an unconditional apology. Read more here. 

Notable Division Bench hearings

A heinous crime, doctors on strike

The Supreme Court took suo moto cognisance of the rape and murder of a woman trainee doctor at Kolkata’s R.G. Kar Medical College on 9 August. So far, the top court has heard the case five times and reviewed the CBI’s investigation report four times. 

While the Court has hitherto refused to disclose details of the investigation, it has set up a National Task Force to formulate a pan-India protocol for doctor safety. The bench has also urged protesting doctors to return to work—initially reassuring them that they would not be penalised and later cautioning that protests should not come in their way of duty. The Court has also pulled up the West Bengal government for delays in setting up additional security measures at hospitals. 

Initially, the top court’s intervention seemed to have provided several doctors’ associations a glimmer of hope and healing. However, two months after the incident, tensions remain high in Kolkata. Junior doctors at the R.G. Kar College and Hospital continue to protest and as of 10 October, they are on the fifth day of their ‘fast-unto-death’ strike. Over 45 senior doctors have resigned to join the protest. The CBI recently filed a chargesheet of its investigation. The Union and the West Bengal government continue to criticise each other’s words and silences. The case will be heard again after the Court’s Dussehra break. 

‘Bulldozer justice’ in the dock

The Court also heard a batch of petitions raising concerns against illegal demolitions of homes belonging to individuals accused of crimes. Petitioners have alleged that these demolitions are targeted and are a form of extrajudicial retribution.

On 2 September, Justices Gavai and Viswanathan expressed their intention to establish pan-India guidelines for demolitions. Various stakeholders, including the Union, Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh, have submitted their suggestions. Read more here. 

The Court has since reserved judgement in the case. 

It’s duty time

A long, dormant case was resurrected in September. The ask: the fundamental duties enshrined under Article 51A be made enforceable, just like fundamental rights under Part III. On 11 September, a bench led by Justice Khanna expressed hesitation in allowing the prayer but directed the Union to submit a list of all legislations that deal with the fundamental duties within six weeks. Read our report here.

Court news

The people’s Court

To mark its 75th anniversary, the Supreme Court launched a week-long Lok Adalat from 29 July to hear and clear cases with “elements of settlement.” Read more here.

A litany of listing issues

In August, 137 Advocates-on-Record wrote a letter highlighting the constraints and difficulties faced in filing, registering and listing cases at the Supreme Court. To understand what’s going on, we spoke to practitioners. Read our reported story here. 

Causelist chronicles

From our daily scanning of the causelist, we’ve observed that certain cases, like the challenge to the marital rape exception in penal law, are listed often but aren’t taken up for hearing on merits. Read more here. 

Justice dramatised

The Supreme Court started livestreaming Constitution Bench proceedings two years ago. Recently, it has also started livestreaming select Division Bench hearings, such as the ones on NEET and the R.G. Kar rape and murder case. Has this encouraged performative utterances in the Court? We explore here. 

New drops in our Supreme Court@75 series

At the end of the Summer Session, we launched a special series to commemorate 75 years of the Supreme Court. 

We published five new articles in this series over the last quarter.  

1. What a Jagged Little PIL: The People’s Court at 75
2. The First Eight
3. “Appealing to prurient interests”: Book bans, the courts, the mob
4. Gender Diversity at the Supreme Court of India 
5. Master of the Roster: Securing Process Legitimacy of the Supreme Court. 

Read all these articles here.