Supreme Selections: Top Supreme Court Judgments of October 2024

30 October, 2024

Share on:

Overview of October Month

In October 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) of India heard various matters and delivered approximately 65 judgments, including up to 50 reportable judgments. This month, the top court also experienced Dusshera and Diwali vacations which last for a week each. In this article, we will explore the important verdicts or decisions of the Supreme Court delivered in October 2024.

Important Verdicts of October Month

TOLA will Continue to Apply to Income Tax Act after April 2021

Judgment Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal (October 03, 2024)

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

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020- Section 2(1)(b)}, {The Finance Act, 2021}, and {The Income Tax Act, 1961- Sections 147 to 151}

Judgment Brief and Decision: The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of appeals involving the interplay of three Parliamentary statutes the Income Tax Act 1961, The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020, and the Finance Act 2021. The top court set aside decisions of High Courts which stated that the TOLA will not extend the time limit for issuing notices for re-assessment under the Income Tax Act. It held that the TOLA will continue to apply to the Income Tax Act after April 01, 2021, if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act falls for completion between March 20, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Moreover, the ruled, “Section 3(1) of TOLA overrides Section 149 of the Income Tax Act only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148.”

Mere Existence of Benchmark Disability is not a Reason to Disqualify a Candidate from Being Eligible For Course

Judgment Name: Omkar Ramchandra Gond vs. The Union of India & Ors. (October 15, 2024)

Bench: Justice BR Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016- Section 32}

Judgment Brief and Decision: In this case, the bench held that the mere existence of benchmark disability is not a reason to disqualify a candidate from being eligible for the MBBS course unless there is a report by the disability assessment board that the candidate is incapacitated from pursuing medical education. The SC was hearing a petition filed by a candidate with 40-45% speech and language disability seeking MBBS admission. It pointed out, “It should be borne in mind that the RPwD (Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Act which was enacted to give effect to the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities - was with the objective of granting persons with disabilities full and effective participation and inclusion in society, grant them equal opportunity and to show respect for their inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make their own choices.” The top court concluded that “...quantified disability per se will not dis-entitle a candidate with benchmark disability from being considered for admission to educational institutions. The candidate will be eligible, if the Disability Assessment Board opines that notwithstanding the quantified disability the candidate can pursue the course in question.”

‘Royalty’ Is Not A ‘Tax’

Judgment Name: The Patna Municipal Corporation & Ors. vs. M/S Tribro AD Bureau & Ors. (October 16, 2024)

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Constitution of India, 1950- Article 265}, {The Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914}, and {The Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951}

Judgment Brief and Decision: In this case, the SC bench held that the ‘royalty’ imposed on advertising companies, by the Municipal Corporation, for putting up hoardings/advertisements could not be termed as 'tax'. It said, “The appellant(s) herein could not raise any demand of tax/fee/royalty on advertisement(s) since it has been made without any legislative sanction and is, thus, violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, 1950.” The judgment reads, “It has been authoritatively clarified by this Court that royalty and tax are not one and same. As such, the Corporation's power to charge royalty cannot be interfered with on the ground that the same is not available, either in the Act or in the Regulations concerned, as there is no question of the said 'royalty' being a tax… As stated previously, royalty and tax cannot be equated – the nomenclatures cannot be used interchangeably in law, both carrying starkly different imports and connotations…we are unable to maintain as tenable the argument that the demand made by the Corporation was a compulsory exaction. Equally, we are unable to state that the demand was/bore the hallmarks of a tax.”

Constitutional Validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955

Judgment Name: In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 (October 17, 2024)

Bench: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice MM Sundresh, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice JB Pardiwala

Judgment Brief and Decision: The constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which deals with ‘Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord,’ was upheld by the Constitutional bench by a 4:1 majority. The majority view said, “We…hold that Section 6A falls within the bounds of the Constitution and does not contravene the foundational principles of fraternity, nor does it infringe upon Articles 6 and 7, Article 9, Article 14, Article 21, Article 29, Article 326, or Article 355 of the Constitution of India.” It said,

“Immigrants who entered the State of Assam prior to 1966 are deemed citizens;
Immigrants who entered between the cut-off dates of 01.01.1966 and 25.03.1971 can seek citizenship subject to the eligibility conditions prescribed in Section 6A (3); and
Immigrants who entered the State of Assam on or after 25.03.1971 are not entitled to the protection conferred vide Section 6A and consequently, they are declared to be illegal immigrants.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Pardiwala said, “Section 6A has acquired unconstitutionality with the efflux of time. The efflux of time has brought to light the element of manifest arbitrariness in the scheme of Section 6A(3) which fails to provide a temporal limit to its applicability.”

States Power to Regulate ‘Industrial Alcohol’ under the term ‘Intoxicating liquor’

Judgment Name: State of U.P. & Ors. vs. M/S Lalta Prasad Vaish and Sons (October 23, 2024)

Bench: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishiskesh Roy, Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Industrial Regulation Act 1951- Section 18G}, {The Possession of Denatured Spirit and Specially Denatured Spirit Rules, 1976}, and {The Essential Commodities Act, 1955}

Judgment Brief and Decision: The Supreme Court, with an 8:1 majority, held that the States have the power to regulate ‘industrial alcohol’. The majority view said that the term ‘intoxicating liquor’ in Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution will include industrial alcohol. The operative part of the judgment reads, “Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution is both an industry-based entry and a product-based entry. The words that follow the expression “that is to say” in the Entry are not exhaustive of its contents. It includes the regulation of everything from the raw materials to the consumption of intoxicating liquor.” In this case, Justice Nagarathna gave the dissenting opinion and said, “The subject ‘intoxicating liquors’ falls exclusively within the domain of the state legislatures, which also have the obligation to prevent ‘industrial alcohol’ from being converted into ‘intoxicating liquors’ as an abuse. Therefore, they must pass legislation or take state action in this regard, considering Article 47 of the Constitution of India…The expression ‘intoxicating liquor’ in Entry 8 has acquired a legislative and judicial meaning over the decades.”