Monthly Review: October 2024

As the autumn winds blew over the capital in October, the Supreme Court worked with equal vigour. The Court delivered two Constitution Bench decisions—one concerning Assam’s identity and one about industrial alcohol. Division Benches of the Court also dealt with several critical matters of personal liberty and discrimination. 

Balancing inclusion and identity

On 17 October 2024, a five-judge bench upheld the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 in a 4:1 majority. The provision gave legislative backing to the Assam Accord which granted citizenship to migrants who entered Assam from Bangladesh before March 1971.

The majority bench ruled in favour of Section 6A, stating that it struck a fair balance between the right to equality and Assam’s unique demographic challenges. 

Justice Pardiwala’s dissent, however, held that it must be struck down as it was no longer constitutional, owing to “temporal unreasonableness.” He explained that the government did not undertake an exercise to identify migrants in a timely manner. Therefore, migration continued and the provision acquired unconstitutionality due to the passage of time. 

Happy hour for the states’

On 23 October 2024, nine-judges of the Supreme Court in an 8:1 majority upheld the state government’s power to regulate industrial alcohol under Entry 8 of the State List. This decision overruled the 1989 judgement in Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. v State of U.P. Former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, delivering the majority opinion, concluded that “intoxicating liquors” within the State List includes industrial alcohol, especially where such alcohol could be converted for consumption. The ruling allows states to impose controls to curb illegal liquor production—a substantial shift towards enhancing state autonomy and revenue.

Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented, asserting that industrial alcohol remains distinct from intoxicating liquor and that states lack legislative competence over industries of national interest under Entry 52 of the Union List and the statutory framework of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. She further emphasised that “consumption” should be understood as the act of direct consumption of alcohol, by drinking. 

A sweeping change

On 3 October 2024, a three-judge bench struck down provisions in state prison manuals which promoted caste-based discrimination. The Court reasoned that the provisions violated Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23. 

In the 148-page judgement, Justice Chandrachud highlighted that as per the manuals, “menial” tasks, such as sweeping and cleaning were assigned to marginalised castes since they were “accustomed to perform such duties”, while the “high” castes were allowed to do cooking. Striking down these provisions, the bench held that the notion of an occupation being “degrading or menial”, perpetuates caste discrimination and untouchability. Caste-based labour division, the Court said, amounts to forced labour under Article 23. It also noted that the usage of terms like “habitual offender” and “natural tendency to escape” in reference to prisoners from De-notified Tribe communities was discriminatory. 

The Court directed all states and Union Territories to amend their prison manuals within three months to eliminate caste-based references and discriminatory practices. The Union was directed to revise the Model Prison Manual, 2016 and the Model Prison Act 2023 to address these issues comprehensively.

Does “no mean no” in marriage?

On 17 October 2024, a bench of CJI Chandrachud, and Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, heard arguments challenging the marital rape exception in Indian criminal law. Counsel representing petitioners argued that the exception promotes outdated and patriarchal norms, creating a legal loophole for husbands. They also submitted that striking down the marital rape exception would not create a new offence but merely remove a discriminatory shield. 

The hearings in the case ultimately had to be deferred until after CJI Chandrachud’s retirement. Both petitioners’ and respondents’ counsel requested additional time for their arguments, and the limited working days available made it improbable to conclude the case before the Chief’s departure. It is now for Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna to constitute a fresh bench for the case. 

Beyond the wards: The R.G. Kar case

On 6 October, the top court monitored the R.G. Kar case for the sixth time. The Court had taken suo moto cognisance of the case in August. On the first day of hearings, the Court had set up a National Task Force (NTF) to formulate a pan-India protocol for the safety of doctors. 

During the hearing in October, the Court reviewed the CBI’s fifth status report of the case and urged the NTF to complete its tasks in three weeks. 

Breaking ground on ‘bulldozer justice’

On 1 October 2024, a Division Bench reserved judgement in a batch of pleas challenging unlawful bulldozer demolitions by governments nationwide. The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, heard arguments around safeguards to prevent unauthorised demolition. 

The Court has been deliberating this issue since 2022. On the last day of the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasised that even if it was a case of rape, terrorism, murder or any other heinous crime, “conviction can never be a ground for demolition”. He also asserted that the pan-India guidelines should not benefit “non genuine litigants”—the illegal encroachers. The petitioners, however, argued for extended notice periods. While Senior Advocate C.U. Singh, acknowledged the “legitimate interest” in preventing public encroachment, he explained, “none of that obviates giving people notice, hearing, and passing orders and allowing an appeal.” Senior Advocate Mohammad Rafat Shamshad added that no specific mohallah (neighbourhood) should be targeted. Justice Gavai also clarified that the pan-India guidelines would not be community-specific, and would be “for all the citizens”.

Shifting monsoon winds

In October, we at the SCO also published our Monsoon Session Review, which highlights the top court’s key judgements and developments in the months of July, August and September. The period saw two significant Constitution Bench decisions that cemented states’ powers. In the first one, a nine-judge bench affirmed states’ rights to levy mineral royalties. In the second one, a seven-judge bench upheld sub-classification within SC/ST reservations for “substantive equality”. 

The period was also marked by critical hearings in several suo moto cases and a shift in bail jurisprudence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 

Read the Monsoon Session’s highlights, important judgments, and more, here.

Death penalty jurisprudence in India

Justice P.N. Bhagwati’s dissent in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980), remains crucial to our critical understanding of the death penalty. Justice Bhagwati had condemned the death penalty as arbitrary and inhumane, highlighting the risks of wrongful convictions and the mental anguish inflicted on death row inmates. 

Data reveals that as low as 4.9 percent of death sentences imposed by lower courts are ultimately upheld, while many are overturned, reinforcing the arbitrariness that Justice Bhagwati warned of.

As part of our special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court, Shreya Rastogi and Neetika Vishwanath of Project 39A argue that the Court now has the opportunity and necessity to reconsider its 44-year-old jurisprudence on the death penalty. Read it here.