For the Supreme Court of India, 2024 was an extraordinary year marked by bold judgments some of which bolstered our democracy and helped strengthen the independence of judiciary. In a year marked by the Lok Sabha elections and the retirement of Justice DY Chandrachud, one of the most high-profile Chief Justices of India, the apex court’s docket was packed with Constitution Bench hearings and a record-breaking number of suo motu cases. It handed down landmark judgments that redefined legal precedents on issues of national importance, ranging from affirmative action to electoral reforms, and from child rights to fiscal federalism.
“The judiciary is not just a mirror to reflect societal progress but often the hammer that shapes it,” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed.
This thought found renewed relevance in 2024 as the Supreme Court adjudicated on cases that impacted the rights and lives of taxpayers, voters, and minorities alike. Though some expected much more from the custodians of justice and our Constitution, 2024 did raise the faith in the judiciary and helped reinforce the concept that ultimately the law of the land is supreme and not the prejudiced actions of the executive driven by parochial interests and political ideology. Let’s glance through some of these landmark and historical judgments.
Withdrawal of Remission Granted to BilkisBano Convicts
The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the Gujarat government’s remission order for the 11 convicts in the BilkisBano case was a significant affirmation of justice and rule of law. BilkisBano, a Muslim survivor of the 2002 Gujarat riots, endured unspeakable atrocities, including the gang rape of herself and the murder of her family members.
The Gujarat government’s decision to grant remission sparked nationwide outrage, particularly among Muslims, who saw it as yet another example of systemic bias and impunity. The Court’s judgment underscored the inappropriateness of the Gujarat government’s actions, as the original sentencing was conducted in Maharashtra, making it the only competent authority for remission decisions. Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s remarks about the lack of respect for the rule of law among the convicts serve as a reminder that justice cannot be sacrificed for political expediency. This judgment not only restores faith in the judiciary but also provides hope to minority communities that their rights can still be defended in the face of institutionalised discrimination.
Validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, introduced under the Assam Accord, has significant implications for Muslims in Assam. This provision grants citizenship to those who entered the state before March 24, 1971, including thousands of Bengali-origin Muslims who had been living in limbo, facing constant scrutiny over their citizenship. By rejecting claims that this provision undermines Assamese culture, the Court highlighted the need to address Assam’s demographic challenges without resorting to exclusionary policies. For the Muslim community, this judgment is a partial victory, offering some legal clarity and protection against arbitrary deportation or detention in detention centres. However, the judgment also reflects the broader struggle of being accepted as equal citizens in a political climate that often corelates migration with national security and cultural dilution. While it does not address all anxieties of the community, it reinforces the importance of legal safeguards for marginalised groups.
Minority Status of AMU
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court overruled the long-standing precedent set by Azeez Basha v. Union of India and held that Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) can claim minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution. This judgment opens new avenues for Muslim institutions to assert their autonomy in managing their affairs, including reserving seats for students from the community.
For Muslims in India, AMU has been a symbol of educational empowerment and cultural pride. The decision to reconsider its minority status comes after years of legal and political debate. While the final determination of AMU’s minority status is pending, the parameters laid down by the Court set a precedent for other institutions established by minority communities.
This ruling reaffirms the constitutional promise of safeguarding minority rights and provides a crucial tool for Muslims to protect their educational institutions in the face of increasing challenges.
Guidelines to Curb Illegal Bulldozer Demolitions
In 2024, the Supreme Court issued a critical judgment to curb the illegal use of bulldozers as tools of targeted harassment, particularly against Muslims. Following several incidents where homes and properties of Muslim individuals were demolished under the pretext of administrative action, the Court’s guidelines aim to ensure that such demolitions adhere to due process.
This judgment emerged from the backdrop of Jahangirpuri (Delhi) violence and subsequent instances of property destruction targeting Muslim communities. For many Muslims, these demolitions symbolised collective punishment and a direct attack on their dignity and security. The judgment emphasises the need for fair procedures, accountability, and a clear separation of judicial and administrative powers. It is a reminder that even in a polarised environment, the judiciary can step in to protect the vulnerable. For India’s Muslims, the ruling is a beacon of hope against structural discrimination and a step toward ensuring that justice is not bulldozed along with their homes.
Hope for the Best
In conclusion, the integrity and impartiality of judges remain the bedrock of a functioning democracy. If the judiciary were to falter and mirror the corruption and biases often seen in political arenas, the entire edifice of democracy would be imperilled. The judgments discussed above reaffirm the Supreme Court’s role as a custodian of justice, particularly for India’s marginalised communities.
As Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer famously remarked, “Judges must cease to be a mere extension of the establishment; they must stand as sentinels of human rights.”
Similarly, in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976), the Court upheld the principle that “the Constitution is not a charter for the majority alone, but a constitution for all sections of people, including the minority groups.”
These judgments serve as a beacon of hope, ensuring that fairness and justice remain paramount. While the challenges are immense, the Supreme Court has consistently held the flag high for fairness and equity. It is our earnest hope that the judiciary will continue to uphold its sacred duty of protecting the rights of all citizens, enabling trust in its ability to deliver justice without fear or favour. A just and impartial judiciary is not merely a pillar of democracy – it is its very soul.