Supreme Court's 2024 Judgments Reshape Constitutional Law Landscape

New Delhi – The latter half of 2024 has witnessed the Supreme Court of India deliver a series of landmark judgments, profoundly impacting the nation's constitutional jurisprudence. From reinforcing procedural safeguards in anti-terror laws to defining the boundaries of legislative power and professional regulation, these rulings have set new precedents across a diverse spectrum of legal domains, including criminal, environmental, service, and administrative law.

The Court's pronouncements have not only interpreted complex statutes but have also delved into the core tenets of fundamental rights, recalibrating the balance between state power, individual liberty, and public interest. Legal professionals across the country are now dissecting these decisions, which are set to guide judicial reasoning and legal practice for years to come.

Upholding Personal Liberty: The Mandate for Written Grounds of Arrest

In a significant ruling that reinforces constitutional safeguards for personal liberty, the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) extended the principles laid down in its Pankaj Bansal judgment to arrests made under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The two-judge bench held that any person arrested under the UAPA has a "fundamental and statutory right" to be informed about the grounds of their arrest in writing.

The Court unequivocally stated, “Any person therefore arrested on the allegations of commission of offences under the UAPA has a fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing, with a copy of such written grounds of arrest to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of right at the earliest.” This directive, rooted in Article 22(1) of the Constitution, aims to prevent clandestine arrests and ensure that the accused has a meaningful opportunity to seek legal counsel and challenge their detention. The judgment nullifies any arrest or subsequent remand where this procedural mandate is breached, emphasizing that even the filing of a charge sheet cannot cure the initial unconstitutionality of the arrest.

Regulating Professions and the Right to Practice

The Court also weighed in on the delicate balance between the fundamental right to practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g) and the state's power to impose reasonable restrictions. In Shaji Poulose v. ICAI , a bench of two judges upheld the validity of guidelines issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) that impose a ceiling on the number of tax audits a Chartered Accountant (CA) can undertake.

The petitioners had challenged the cap as an unreasonable restriction on their right to practice. However, the Court sided with the ICAI, holding that the restriction was a reasonable regulatory measure aimed at ensuring the quality and integrity of audits, which serves the larger public interest. The judgment affirmed that professional bodies like the ICAI are competent to frame such regulations to maintain high standards. In a move demonstrating judicial pragmatism, the Court also quashed all pending misconduct proceedings initiated under the guidelines prior to its judgment, citing the legal uncertainty that prevailed. It further directed the ICAI to prospectively apply the guidelines from April 1, 2024, and consider revising the audit ceiling to reflect current realities.

Judicial Promotions and the Merit-Seniority Conundrum

Service jurisprudence concerning the judiciary was clarified in two key decisions. In Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat , a three-judge bench meticulously distinguished between the principles of "merit-cum-seniority" (MCS) and "seniority-cum-merit" (SCM) for judicial promotions. The case concerned the promotion of Civil Judges to the post of District Judges under the 65% quota.

The Court held that the process adopted by the Gujarat High Court—requiring candidates to pass a suitability test with minimum qualifying marks and then promoting the senior-most among the successful candidates—was a valid application of the MCS principle as intended by the All India Judges’ Assn. (3) case. The judgment clarified that for this specific promotional channel, MCS does not mandate a comparative assessment of merit among eligible candidates. Once a judicial officer meets the minimum suitability threshold, seniority becomes the determining factor.

Conversely, in Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana , a bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud upheld the High Court's administrative decision to impose minimum qualifying marks for both the written test and viva voce for promotions. The Court affirmed that prescribing minimum marks for interviews is crucial to assess qualities not discernible from written tests, such as practical competency and overall personality, which are essential for senior judicial roles.

Legislative Power and the Test of Arbitrariness

The Court scrutinized the limits of legislative power in Khalsa University v. State of Punjab , striking down the Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017. The judgment is a powerful statement against legislative overreach and discrimination. The Court found that the Repeal Act, a "single-entity legislation," unfairly singled out Khalsa University from 16 other private universities in the state without any reasonable classification, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the Court applied the "manifest arbitrariness" test, holding that the legislation was based on a non-existent premise—that the new university would damage the "pristine glory" of the historic Khalsa College. Since the college and the university were distinct entities, the very foundation of the Act was deemed capricious and irrational, rendering it unconstitutional.

Other Notable Pronouncements

The Supreme Court’s docket in late 2024 was filled with other constitutionally significant matters:

• Environment and Right to Life ( Container Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Ajay Khera ): Correlating air pollution with the right to life under Article 21, the Court accepted expert recommendations to tackle vehicular pollution in Delhi NCR, directing the Union Government to formulate a robust scrappage policy for heavy-duty diesel vehicles within six months.
• Child Custody and Habeas Corpus ( Nirmala v. Kulwant Singh ): The Court ruled that a writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy and not the appropriate forum for deciding complex child custody disputes, especially when the child's custody is not prima facie illegal. It directed parties to approach civil courts under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for a comprehensive inquiry into the child’s welfare.
• Judicial Conduct ( Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat ): In a matter concerning judicial propriety, the Court set aside a High Court order because the reasoned judgment was signed and uploaded by the judge more than a year after he had demitted office. The Court reiterated that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, emphasizing the necessity of prompt judgment delivery.
• Victim Rehabilitation under POCSO ( Right to Privacy of Adolescents, In re ): Taking suo motu cognizance of a High Court judgment that acquitted a POCSO accused on questionable grounds, the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal and heavily criticized the High Court's "shocking" and perverse personal observations. The judgment underscored the State’s mandatory duty to rehabilitate victims of sexual offences and their children, linking it to the fundamental right to life under Article 21.

These judgments collectively illustrate the Supreme Court's role as the vigilant guardian of the Constitution, actively shaping legal and social norms. For legal practitioners, these rulings provide both clarity on established principles and guidance on emerging areas of law, ensuring that the constitutional fabric of the nation continues to evolve in response to contemporary challenges.