Top 20 Rulings of the Supreme Court of India in 2024

The Supreme Court is India’s apex court of appeal, serving as the final authority for interpreting the Constitution and delivering justice on matters of national and constitutional importance. In its long history of almost 75+ years, the Supreme Court of India has delivered numerous historic and landmark judgements, making significant contributions to the growth of the country's economic, social, and political systems. 

Now as we step into 2025, it's a perfect time to look back at some of the most impactful and transformative decisions handed down by the Supreme Court in 2024. These rulings highlight the Constitution's evolving interpretations and offer a glimpse into the direction India is headed in its pursuit of justice and progress.

Here, in this blog, we are going to list the top 20 rulings of the Supreme Court of India. 

In a significant ruling on January 8, 2024, the Supreme Court quashed the Gujarat government’s decision to release 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, who were convicted for gang rape and the murder of Bano’s family during the 2002 Gujarat Riots. The two-judge bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan passed this order declaring them to be illegal and issued under jurisdictional overreach. 

The apex court set aside the impugned orders of remission granted by the Government of Gujarat to the 11 convicts holding that the Gujarat government was not the right legal authority and had no jurisdiction to entertain such a remission application or pass orders of remission, dated 10-08-2022 in favor of the convicts, under  Section 432(7) of the CrPC.
The judgment clarified that while remission decisions are within the administrative domain, the judiciary can annul such orders if they violate the rule of law. The ruling highlighted the court’s role in safeguarding justice and ensuring that remission is granted in line with constitutional and legal standards.

Another landmark verdict pronounced by the seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court in a 4:3 majority decision overturned a 57-year-old precedent set in Azeez Basha v Union of India (1967), which ruled that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) cannot claim to be a minority institution under Article 30, as it was established through the AMU Act of 1920. The Court held that institutions created by legal instruments can qualify as minority institutions if founded by individuals from minority communities.

This is a historic verdict because, for the first time in 75 years, the Court outlined specific criteria to determine the minority status of religious or linguistic educational institutions under Article 30. These guidelines will aid smaller benches in evaluating AMU’s status and similar cases involving institutional autonomy, particularly regarding seat reservations for specific communities, as seen in AMU’s 2005 policy.

In a landmark ruling ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court struck down the 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme, which permitted anonymous political donations from corporations, individuals, and organizations. On 15 February 2024, the Court unanimously declared that voters have the right to know the sources of political funding, emphasizing transparency as essential for free and fair elections. It found the scheme inadequate to justify donor anonymity based on fear of retaliation and ordered an immediate halt to bond sales.

The Court further directed the Election Commission and the State Bank of India to disclose all data collected on Electoral Bond transactions publicly. Although concerns of quid pro quo emerged from the data, the Court declined to appoint a Special Investigation Team, dismissing the allegations as speculative.

In July 2024, the Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a corruption case linked to the city’s liquor policy. The case, perceived by some as politically motivated, underscored the complex relationship between anti-corruption enforcement and political rivalries. The Court prioritized the fundamental right to life and liberty while referring the matter to a larger bench for detailed examination.

Kejriwal’s interim bail highlighted broader concerns about the intersection of law and politics in India. The case raised questions regarding the use of legal mechanisms in political disputes, setting the stage for further judicial scrutiny and political accountability.

In November 2024, the three-judge bench of Justice DY Chandrachud Former CJI, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, overturned a state-imposed ban on Islamic educational institutions, or madrasas, in Uttar Pradesh, reaffirming religious freedom and minority rights in India. On November 5, 2024, the court upheld the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act, 2004, reversing an earlier Allahabad High Court ruling that had declared the Act unconstitutional.

The verdict allowed nearly 25,000 madrasas to continue functioning, benefiting millions of students and teachers. Emphasizing the cultural and educational significance of madrasas, the court reinforced India’s commitment to secularism while directing authorities to respect institutional autonomy and maintain educational standards.

On July 25, 2024, the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India ruled that state governments hold exclusive authority to impose taxes on mines and minerals, distinguishing "royalty" from "tax." This landmark decision settled a long-standing legal debate on fiscal autonomy, impacting resource allocation and revenue sharing between central and state governments.

In an 8:1 majority, the Court clarified that under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act), royalty differs conceptually from a tax. Reinforcing India’s federal structure, the ruling empowers states, particularly mineral-rich ones, to regulate revenues, potentially driving policy reforms in the mining sector.

On 24th September 2024, the two-judge bench of former CJI Chandrachud and Justice Pardiwala passed a landmark verdict to include India in the club of jurisdictions that criminalizes the the viewing, storing, and possession of ‘child pornography’.Objecting to the use of the phrase in formal contexts, the court termed it ‘child sexual abuse and exploitative material or CSEAM. For long ago, the High Courts had coherently failed to answer if merely possessing explicit videos involving children is covered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Both Supreme Court unanimously agreed and ruled out that Section 15 of the POCSO Act acknowledged that possessing such material, failing to delete or destroy it, and holding it with the intent to distribute are all punishable offenses. The court also upheld the ‘Safe Harbour’ Clause under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which protects intermediaries from liability for third-party content and does not apply to child pornography.

On July 8, the two-member-judge bench of former CJI Chandrachud and Justice Pardiwala refused the appellant’s certain recommendations, who sought framing of guidelines for content creators. However, the Supreme Court of India issued guidelines to the visual media industry regarding the portrayal of persons with disabilities, ensuring their respectful and accurate representations. The Court laid down mandatory directions that individuals with disabilities must not be portrayed in a derogatory or mocking manner, emphasizing dignity in films and television.

The judgement aligns with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and international conventions promoting their rights and dignity. Media creators must now follow these guidelines, potentially requiring revisions in content creation, greater awareness, and sensitivity training for producers and creators to foster inclusivity and respect.

The case questioned whether Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, introduced to implement the Assam Accord of 1985, violated several constitutional provisions, including Articles 11, 14, 29, 326, and 355. The Accord aimed to address the issues arising from the influx of refugees into Assam following the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. It grants citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam before March 24, 1971, providing legal clarity to thousands who had lived in the state for decades without clear citizenship status.

The five-judge bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A in a 4:1 majority. The Court dismissed the claims that the act dilutes Assamese culture and amounts to external aggression The Act grants citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam from Bangladesh before January 1, 1966 (Section 6A(2)). Additionally, those who arrived between January 1, 1966, and March 24, 1971, are considered Indian citizens but without voting rights for 10 years (Section 6A(3)).

This was yet another far-reaching ruling from the Supreme Court of India on affirmative action, the seven-judge bench upheld that states have the authority to create sub-categories within the reserved Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) groups. The judgement was pronounced in a 6:1 majority led by former CJI DY Chandrachud, overturning its own decision of 2004 in E.V. Chinnaiah v Union of India case. 

The majority agreed that sub-classification within SC/ST categories is allowed to promote "substantive equality," as different communities within these groups experience varying levels of discrimination. However, the bench stated that any law introducing sub-classification must be based on solid evidence and would be open to judicial review.

This was one of the longest pending cases in the Supreme Court of India and was heard by a nine-judge bench that had to consider two significant questions —- first, whether Article 31C remained valid in the Constitution after the Minerva Mills v Union of India (1980) decision and second, whether privately owned property could be considered a "material resource of the community" under Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of India pronounced its verdict on November 5, 2024, in an 8:1 majority holding that Article 31C  already existed in the Constitution protecting laws that promote the Directive Principles outlined in Article 39(b) and (c) from challenges. Therefore, any law giving effect to wealth redistribution under the principles cannot be contested because it violates fundamental rights. 

The Court ruled that not all privately owned property qualifies as a "material resource of the community" under Article 39(b). The judgement explained that private property could be considered a material resource only if it met specific conditions, such as availability, nationalization, or acquisition.

In a public interest litigation petition challenging caste-based discrimination in prison labor division, a three-judge bench led by former CJI Dr. DY Chandrachud found significant flaws in the prison manuals of several states. These provisions were deemed unconstitutional for violating Constitutional principles, and the Court ordered states to revise the manuals accordingly.

The Court took suo motu cognizance of the issue, condemning discriminatory practices like assigning cleaning tasks to marginalized groups. It directed states to submit compliance reports and scheduled a follow-up hearing in three months.
 

On 26th September 2024, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Tamil Nadu transport minister V. Senthil Balaji, putting an end to the 15-month-long incarceration, under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) case. Balaji had approached the Apex Court after the Madras High Court had denied him the bail. He had been arrested by the ED team for the alleged cash-for-job scheme where three FIRs were lodged against him between 2015 to 2018. 

However, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Balaji being a man of influence, under a few stringent conditions leading to the prosecution’s arguments that (a) he would have to submit a bail bond of Rs 25 lakhs, (b) surrender his passport to the PMLA court, c) appear before the ED team bi-weekly on every Monday and Friday, (D) appear in the court and cooperate with it, (E) and not communicate directly and indirectly with the witnesses under any circumstances. 

The Supreme Court of India on August 9, 2024, granted bail to senior AAP leader and former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in cases filed by the ED and CBI related to the now-defunct Delhi excise policy. A Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan advocated that Mr. Sisodia had been deprived of speedy trials, acknowledging a 17-month-long incarceration, on his ongoing delay in the commencement of the trial. 

However, similar to the Senthil Balaji case, the Supreme Court imposed a few strict conditions such as submitting a bail bond of Rs. 10 lakh with two sureties. Additionally, Mr. Sisodia has to also surrender his passport in the PMLA court, and appear before and report to the Investigating Officer twice a week on Mondays and Thursdays. He has been ordered not to communicate or influence any witness or tamper with evidence. 

The Supreme Court of India took the suo motto matter of the alleged rape and murder of a female trainee doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital to ensure the safety of the medical professionals and doctors at the workplace. Recognizing the urgency of the case and issue, the court laid down a series of orders, which are as follows. 

Establishing a ten-member National Task Force, consisting of doctors from across the country, has been formed to provide recommendations on the procedures to be implemented nationwide to ensure workplace safety.

Create a safe protocol for working hour conditions for interns, residents, senior residents, nurses, doctors, and more. 

Pointed out several problems doctors face especially during night duty and showed their deep concerns over it. 

Slammed the West Bengal Government for delay in taking immediate action and lodging the FIR. 

Additionally, the Court directed the CBI and the State of West Bengal to file status reports by August 22, 2024, regarding the investigation into the murder and incidents of vandalism, respectively.

On 30th July 2024, the Supreme Court of India passed an important verdict wherein it said that the State Bar Council cannot charge more than the amount specified under Section 24 of the Advocates Act as enrollment fees from aspiring advocates. The fixed enrollment fee is Rs 750 for the general category advocates and Rs 125 for the SC/ST category advocates. 

The ruling mandates that Bar Councils cannot charge enrolment fees exceeding the limit set by Parliament under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. Additional fees imposed by State Bar Councils are invalid, and changes to fee amounts are prohibited. While Councils may charge for other services, these cannot be part of enrolment fees. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud emphasized that excessive fees create barriers for marginalized individuals aspiring to become advocates.

On April 26, 2024, the Supreme Court rejected a series of pleas that sought 100% cross-verification of the vote count in the electronic voting machines (EVMs) with VPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail) paper slips. It also rejected the petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms to conduct election and voting process by using the ballot paper system. The key opinions of CJI Sanjeev Khanna concurred with Justice Dipankar Datta, sharing his views in a separate statement. The ruling had come at an important time, coinciding with the second phase of General Lok Sabha Elections 2024. 

However, the Bench directed steps to strengthen the system, including sealing Symbol Loading Units (SLUs) after symbol loading from May 1, 2024. The sealed SLUs will be stored with EVMs in a strong room for 45 days post-polling.

An  NGO, Gene Campaign filed a petition against the Union Government’s decision to grant conditional approval for releasing genetically modified hybrid DMG-11 mustard for environmental use.  They claimed that the current laws under the 1989 Genetically Engineered Organisms Rules, made under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, are not enough to handle the possible environmental and health risks of genetically modified (GM) crops.

The joint bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol gave split verdicts on the same matter. While Justice B.V. Nagarathna delivered the ruling in favor of Gene Campaign and overturned the approval granted by the GEAC and the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Justice Karol differed in his opinion and upheld it, finding the approval process compliant with regulatory norms. This case was transferred to a larger bench for the final judgement. However, both judges directed the Union Government to constitute a National Policy on GM crops, sharing its inputs with all stakeholders and state governments. 

In yet another landmark and important ruling made by the Supreme Court of India, it said that a candidate with a benchmark disability cannot be disqualified from admission to educational institutions solely based on the extent of their quantified disability. This crucial judgement came from the three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and KV Viswanathan. 

The verdict delivered by the Court says that a candidate shall be deemed eligible if the Disability Assessment Board (DAB) determines that, despite the quantified disability, the candidate is capable of pursuing the specified course. Until the NMC regulations, as notified on 13-05-2019 and referenced in Appendix H-1, are revised by the NMC, they should be interpreted under the findings of this judgement.

The Supreme Court of India, thus expunged the Bombay High Court Order to confirm the admission of the appellant and directed the medical college authorities to treat his admission as a valid one in the eye of the law. 

In a petition filed by Kuldeep Kumar, the defeated AAP candidate for Chandigarh Mayor, the Supreme Court, comprising CJI Dr. DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, annulled the election result declared by the Presiding Officer, ruling that the eight ballots marked as “invalid” were, in fact, valid. 

Using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice, the Court declared Kuldeep Kumar as the validly elected Mayor. Furthermore, the Court issued a show-cause notice to Presiding Officer Anil Masih, questioning why proceedings should not be initiated against him under Section 340 of the CrPC for making false statements.

Although we have thoroughly analyzed and listed down the Top 20 Rulings and Landmark Verdicts Passed by the Supreme Court of India, this series does not end here. There are many more important decisions pronounced by the Apex Court that had significant impacts on social, economic, and political landscapes, enabling governments to change their policies and emphatically changing person’s personal lives.