Recent Landmark Case Laws Shaping the Constitution of India

Here are some of the important latest case laws on the Constitution of India:

1. Electoral Reforms and Right to Information:

Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India & Ors. (Judgment: February 15, 2024)

A five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously struck down the Union Government's 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme as unconstitutional.

The Court held that the scheme, by allowing anonymous corporate donations to political parties, violated the voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which is essential for free and fair elections.

The amendments made to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Companies Act, 2013, and the Income Tax Act, 1961, to facilitate the scheme were also held to be unconstitutional. The removal of the cap on corporate funding was deemed arbitrary.

2. Legislative Privileges and Accountability:

Sita Soren v. Union of India (Judgment: March 4, 2024)

A seven-judge Constitution Bench overruled the 1998 P.V. Narasimha Rao judgment.

It held that Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) cannot claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution from prosecution for accepting bribes in connection with a vote or speech in the legislature.

The Court clarified that bribery is not protected by parliamentary privilege and that the offence of bribery is complete on the acceptance of the bribe, irrespective of whether the vote or speech is delivered as agreed.

3. Federalism, Taxation, and Regulatory Powers:

Mineral Area Development Authority etc. v. M/S Steel Authority of India & Ors. (Judgment: July 25, 2024, related orders on retrospective application followed)

A nine-judge Constitution Bench dealt with the states' power to levy taxes on mineral rights and whether royalty on mining leases constitutes a tax.

The majority held that royalty is not a tax but a payment from miners to landowners (government). It clarified that states can impose taxes on mineral rights under Entry 50 of List II, but these powers are subject to Parliament's regulations under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

The judgment has significant implications for federal fiscal relations and the financial resources of mineral-rich states. The court later directed that the judgment would apply retrospectively with a staggered payment plan for unpaid taxes.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. M/S. Lalta Prasad Vaish (Judgment: October 23, 2024)

A nine-judge Constitution Bench affirmed the states' power to regulate industrial alcohol, holding that the Union's powers under List I (e.g., industries the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest) cannot denude the states of their legislative competence under List II (e.g., intoxicating liquors).

4. Reservation and Social Justice:

State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. (Judgment: August 1, 2024)

A seven-judge Constitution Bench, in a 6:1 majority, upheld the power of State governments to make sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for the purpose of reservation.

This ruling overturned the earlier E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) judgment, which had held that states lacked the power to do so. The Court reasoned that such sub-classification could help ensure that benefits reach the most deserving and marginalized within these communities. Justice Gavai, in a concurring opinion, also advocated for the application of the "creamy layer" principle to SCs/STs.

5. Citizenship:

In re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (Judgment: October 17, 2024)

A five-judge Constitution Bench, in a 4:1 majority, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. This provision deals with the citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord and provides a special framework for granting citizenship to migrants who came to Assam from specified territories (largely Bangladesh) before certain cut-off dates.

The Court rejected claims that the provision diluted Assamese culture or amounted to external aggression, emphasizing that cultural concerns arose more from non-implementation.

6. Minority Educational Rights:

Aligarh Muslim University Through its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v. Naresh Agarwal (Judgment: November 8, 2024)

A seven-judge Constitution Bench addressed the issue of the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).

The Court established important criteria for determining minority institution status under Article 30 of the Constitution, emphasizing a focus on the actual genesis and "brain" behind the institution rather than just formal incorporation by statute. It moved away from some of the reasoning in the Azeez Basha case. The matter was referred to a regular bench to apply these parameters to AMU.

7. Fundamental Rights (Article 21 - Right to Life and Personal Liberty, Article 14 - Equality):

Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Others (Judgment: January 8, 2024)

The Supreme Court quashed the Gujarat government's order granting remission to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang-rape and murder case from the 2002 Gujarat riots.

The Court held that the Gujarat government was not the appropriate government to grant remission and that the order was passed without application of mind and was an instance of usurpation of power. This judgment underscored the importance of the rule of law and procedural fairness in matters of remission, impacting the convicts' right to liberty and the victims' right to justice.

IMRAN PRATAPGADHI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

The Court emphasized the protection of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the need for police to act sensitively when FIRs are based on speech, especially when it does not attract reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). It quashed an FIR, noting that a poem promoting non-violence did not attract offences related to promoting enmity or outraging religious feelings.

Javed Ahmed Hajam Vs The State Of Maharashtra (Judgment: March 7, 2024)

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against an individual for a WhatsApp status critical of a government policy (abrogation of Article 370), reaffirming that dissent and criticism of state decisions are integral to democracy and protected under Article 19(1)(a).

M.K. Ranjitsinh & Ors. vs Union of India (2024) (Great Indian Bustard case)

This case highlighted the right to a healthy environment under Article 21. The Court initially ordered undergrounding of power lines to protect the endangered Great Indian Bustard but later modified its order, emphasizing a balanced approach between biodiversity conservation and renewable energy goals, and appointed an expert committee.

Various cases concerning "Bulldozer Justice" (e.g., In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, November 13, 2024, as per Justice Gavai's reported judgments)

The Supreme Court has reportedly taken a strong stance against the practice of demolishing properties of individuals merely because they are accused or convicted of a crime, terming such actions as contrary to the rule of law and a violation of the separation of powers. Emphasized the need for due process, including prior show-cause notice and judicial scrutiny.

8. Judicial Process and Powers:

High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Judgment: February 29, 2024)

A five-judge Constitution Bench overturned its 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment, which had held that interim stay orders granted by High Courts would automatically expire after six months unless expressly extended. The Court set aside this automatic vacation rule, noting its potential adverse impact on litigants.

Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (Judgment: November 7, 2024)

A five-judge Constitution Bench clarified that while employers have discretion in framing rules to identify suitable candidates for public posts, the benchmarks for evaluation must be established before the recruitment process begins, and the recruiting authority must adhere to established rules, regulations, and constitutional principles.

9. Right to Property and Directive Principles:

Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (Judgment: November 5, 2024)

A nine-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that Article 31C of the Constitution continues to exist. This provision protects laws enacted to give effect to the Directive Principles of State Policy under Articles 39(b) (distribution of ownership and control of material resources of the community to subserve the common good) and 39(c) (operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment) from challenges on the grounds of violation of Articles 14 and 19.

The Court also interpreted "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b), holding that not all private properties would automatically fall under this definition, and specific criteria need to be met.