2024 Round-Up| Constitution Bench Decisions Of Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in 2024 held several Constitution Benches to resolve crucial and long pending issues with nationwide socio-legal ramifications.There were 12 Constitution Bench judgements - three 9-judge bench, three 7-judge bench and six 5-judge bench verdicts. Here are the major landmark decisions given by the Constitution Benches in 2024:1. Electoral Bonds Scheme Declared Unconstitutional [5-judge bench]The Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (February 15, 2024) held that anonymous electoral bonds are violative of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the scheme has been struck down as unconstitutional.The Court considered two key questions, namely, first, whether the non-disclosure of information on voluntary contributions to political parties according to the electoral bond scheme and the amendments to Section 29C of Representation of the People Act, Section 183(3) of the Companies Act, Section 13A(b) of the Income Tax Act are violative of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and second, whether unlimited corporate funding to political parties as envisaged by the amendment to Section 182(1) of the Companies Act violates the principles of free and fair elections.The Court dealing with a batch of petitions challenging the electoral bonds scheme, introduced through amendments in the Finance Act 2017. The petitioners, including the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and Congress leader Jaya Thakur, argued that the anonymity associated with electoral bonds undermines transparency in political funding and encroaches upon voters' right to information. They further contend that the scheme facilitates contributions through shell companies, raising concerns about accountability and integrity in electoral finance.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored majority judgment], and Justices Sanjiv Khanna [concurring opinion], BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra2. No Automatic Vacation Of HC Stay Orders [5-judge bench]The Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (February 29, 2024) overturned its 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment which mandated the interim orders passed by High Courts staying trials in civil and criminal cases will automatically expire after six months from the date of the order, unless expressly extended by the High Courts.The five-judge bench also held that constitutional courts should refrain from laying down time-bound schedules for cases pending before any other courts. The pattern of pendency of cases in every court including the high court is different and giving out-of-turn priority for certain cases is best left to the concerned judge, who is aware of the the grassroots situation of the court.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, and Justices Abhay S Oka [authored majority judgment], JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal [concurring opinion], and Manoj Misra.3. Legislative Privileges Of MPs/ MLAs Don't Protect Them From Bribery [7-judge bench]In Sita Soren vs Union Of India (March 4, 2024), the Supreme Court overturned the 1998 PV Narasimha Rao judgment which held that members of Parliament and legislative assemblies could claim immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of the Constitution for receiving a bribe in contemplation of a vote or speech in the legislature.The Court held that the offence of bribery as per the Prevention of Corruption Act is complete the moment the illegal gratification is taken and it is immaterial whether the legislator votes or gives a speech later in the house in terms of the bribe."The offence of bribery is agnostic to the performance of the aggrieved action and is crystallised on the exchange of illegal gratification. It does not matter whether the vote is cast in the aggrieved direction or if the vote is cast at all. The offence of bribery is complete at the point in time when the legislator accepts the bribe," the judgment authored by CJI DY Chandrachud stated.The Court also held that the PV Narasimha judgment resulted in a paradoxical situation where a legislator, who accepts a bribe and votes accordingly is protected whereas a legislator, who despite taking a bribe votes independently is prosecuted. This interpretation is against the letter and spirit of Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution.Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored majority judgment], Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra.4. State's Power To Tax Mineral Rights [9-judge bench]In Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/S Steel Authority Of India & Ors (July 25, 2024), the Supreme Court held by an 8:1 majority that States have the power to levy tax on mineral rights and that the Union law - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 - do not limit such power of the States.The key questions that the court examined were (1) whether...

2024 Round-Up| Constitution Bench Decisions Of Supreme Court

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags