Supreme Selections: Top Supreme Court Judgments of August 2024

30 August, 2024

Share on:

Overview of August Month

This month, the Supreme Court of India delivered various judgments on different cases such as bail, SC/ST reservation, contempt proceedings, child custody, Rape and murder case, NEET re-test, POCSO matters, mineral tax, and many more. Let us discuss some of the important judgments of August 2024 in brief.

Important Verdicts of August Month

Sub-classification of SC/ST(s) is Permissible

Judgment Name: The State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Davinder Singh & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Bela M Trivedi, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Constitution of India, 1950- Articles 14, 15, 16, 226, and 341}, {The Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018}, and {The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951}

Judgment Brief and Decision: On August 01, 2024, the Supreme Court with a majority of 6:1 held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is permissible overruling the EV Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh judgment which stated that sub-classification of SC/STs is contrary to Article 341 of the Constitution of India which confers right on the President to prepare the list of SC/STs. Justice Trivedi delivered the dissenting opinion and said, “The States have no legislative competence to enact the law for providing reservation or giving preferential treatment to a particular caste/castes by dividing/sub-dividing/sub-classifying or regrouping the castes, races or tribes enumerated as the ‘Scheduled Castes’ in the notification under Article 341.” Justice Trivedi also illustrated that “The State must evolve a policy of identifying the creamy layer even from the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes so as to exclude them from the benefit of reservation.” 4 out of six judges who delivered the majority judgment also expressed their view on the creamy layer issue.

Bail to Manish Sisodia in Money Laundering Case

Judgment Name: Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Bench: Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Constitution of India, 1950- Article 21}, {The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Section 439}, {The Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 420, 201 and 120B}, {The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12}, and {The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002- Sections 3 and 45}

Judgment Brief and Decision: In this case, the top court was hearing the bail plea of Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party Leader Manish Sisodia, who was arrested by the ED and the CBI in a money laundering case in connection with the Delhi liquor policy scam. After hearing the contentions of both parties, the bench granted bail to Manish Sisodia on August 09 and reminded the Trial Courts and High Courts about the principle, ‘bail is the rule, jail is an exception’.

Supreme Court closes contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved

Judgment Name: In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Limited through its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev (August 13, 2024)

Bench: Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Constitution of India, 1950- Articles 129 and 32}, {The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954- Section 3 and 4}, {The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Rules, 1955- Rule 6}, and {Contempt of Courts Act, 1971}

Judgment Brief and Decision: The Supreme Court closed the contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, and co-founder Baba Ramdev over the publication of misleading medical advertisements. While granting relief to Patanjali Ayurved, the top court bench said “Given the attendant facts and circumstances of the case and the effort made by the proposed contemnors to absolve themselves of acts that amounted to breach of undertakings given to this Court, we are inclined to accept the apology tendered by them and close the matter.” It also warned them to strictly abide by the terms of their undertakings, adding that dishonoring the terms of the undertakings, will be viewed strictly and the ensuing consequences would indeed be grave.

Natural Guardian’s Right to Child Custody

Judgment Name: Gautam Kumar Das vs. NCT of Delhi and Others (August 20, 2024)

Bench: Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Constitution of India, 1950- Article 226}, {The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890}, and {The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956- Section 6}

Judgment Brief and Decision: In this case, the top court granted custody of a minor child to her father stating that merely because the appellants being the relatives took care of the child for some time, they cannot retain the custody of the child. It added, “In the present case, the first respondent has neither abandoned the child nor has deprived the child of a right to his love and affection. The circumstances were such that due to the illness of the parents, the appellants had to take care of the child for some time.” The bench added, “In our opinion, merely because of the unfortunate circumstances faced by the appellant as a result of which, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were given the temporary custody of the minor child and only because they looked after her for few years, the same cannot be a ground to deny the custody of the minor child to the appellant, who is her only natural guardian.” The top court concluded, “However, it is to be noted that a common thread in all the judgments concerning the custody of minor children is the paramount welfare of the child…we find that, apart from the appellant being the natural guardian, even in order to ensure the welfare of the minor child, she should live with her natural family.”

RG Kar Hospital Rape and Murder Case

Judgment Name: In Re: Alleged Rape and Murder of Trainee Doctor in RG Kar Medical College Hospital, Kolkata and Related Issues (August 20, 2024)

Bench: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice JB Pardiwala

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013- Section 19}

Judgment Brief and Decision: The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the issue and was first heard on August 20, 2024. In the order, the bench expressed concern over the absence of safety conditions for doctors and medical professionals across the country. It created a ‘National Task Force’ (NTF) consisting of doctors all over the country “to remedy the issues of concern pertaining to safety, working conditions and well-being of medical professionals…” It also directed all State Governments and UT Governments, through their Secretaries, in the Ministries of Health and Family Welfare and the Central Government, through the Secretary, Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare must collate information from all hospitals run by the State and the Central Government, respectively on various aspects, as mentioned in the order, including “How many security personnel are employed at each Hospital and each department;” Moreover, the bench also directed the CBI to submit a status report by August 22, 2024, on the progress in the investigation of the crime at RG Kar Medical College Hospital.

Right to Privacy of Adolescents (POCSO Case)

Judgment Name: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents

Bench: Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 313}, {The Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sub-sections (2)(n) and (3) of Section 376, Sections 363 and 366}, and {The Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012}

Judgment Brief and Decision: The top court set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order and controversial remarks such as adolescent girls should control their sexual urges. It opined that the remarks of the HC were objectionable, preachy, sweeping, unwarranted, and irrelevant. The bench added that such remarks are an insult to the rights of dignity and privacy of adolescents. On August 20, the SC bench set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the Special Court “to the extent of the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under sub-sections (2)(n) and (3) of Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.”

Bail to K. Kavitha in Money Laundering Case

Judgment Name: Kalvakuntla Kavitha vs. Directorate of Enforcement (August 27, 2024)

Bench: Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002- Section 45(1)}

Judgment Brief and Decision: In the money laundering and corruption cases initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in relation to the Delhi Liquor Policy Scam Case, Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K. Kavitha was arrested. The Supreme Court on August 27, 2024, granted her bail stating that “Investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed. Custody of the appellant (K Kavitha) is not necessary. She has been behind bars for 5 months. The likelihood of trial being concluded in near future is impossible. As said in various pronouncements of this court, undertrial custody should not turn into a punishment.”