Supreme Selections: Top Supreme Court Judgments of November 2024

29 November, 2024

Share on:

Overview of November Month

In November, the Supreme Court (SC) of India pronounced approximately 81 judgments, including around 66 reportable judgments. This month, a ceremonial bench was also organized to bid farewell to former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and after that Justice Sanjiv Khanna took oath as the new CJI. Let us explore the judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court in November 2024.

Important Verdicts of November Month

Material Resources of the Community

Judgment Name: Property Owners Association & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (November 05, 2024)

Bench: Former CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Judgment Brief and Decision: In this case, the question “Whether private resources fall within the definition of material resource of the community under Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India (one of the Directive Principles of the State Policy)” was answered. The nine-judge bench of the SC with a majority of 8:1 ruled that all private properties cannot form part of the ‘material resources of the community,’ which the State should distribute as best to serve the common good as mentioned under Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India. The majority judgment reads, “Not every resource owned by an individual can be considered a ‘material resource of the community’ merely because it meets the qualifier of material needs.” In a dissenting opinion, Justice Dhulia said, “What and when do the “privately owned resources” come within the definition of “material resources” is not for this Court to declare. This is not required. The key factor is whether such resources would subserve common good. Clearly the acquisition, ownership or even control of every privately owned resource will not subserve common good. Yet at this stage we cannot come out with a catalogue of do’s and don’ts. We must leave this exercise to the wisdom of the legislatures.”

Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Minority Status Case

Judgment Name: Aligarh Muslim University vs. Naresh Agarwal & Ors. (November 08, 2024)

Bench: Former CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Sanjiv Khanna (current CJI), Justice Surya Kant, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, and Justice Dipankar Datta

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Indian Constitution, 1950- Article 30(1)}, {The Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act, 1951}, and {Aligarh Muslim University (Amendment) Act, 1965}

Judgment Brief and Decision: With a 4:3 majority, the SC bench overruled its 1967 judgment in the S. Azeez Basha vs. Union of India case that rejected the minority status of AMU and held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution. The majority said, “Religious or linguistic minorities must prove that they established the educational institution for the community to be a minority educational institution for the purposes of Article 30(1).” In a dissenting opinion, Justice Datta said, “AMU was neither established by any religious community nor is it administered by a religious community which is regarded as a minority community; hence, AMU does not qualify as a minority institution.”

Bulldozer Justice

Judgment Name: In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (November 13, 2024)

Bench: Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Constitution of India, 1950- Articles 32 and 142}

Judgment Brief and Decision: The bench held, “If a citizen’s house is demolished merely because he is an accused or even for that matter a convict, that too without following the due process as prescribed by law, in our considered view, it will be totally unconstitutional for more than one reason. Firstly, the executive cannot declare a person guilty, as this process is the fundamental aspect of the judicial review. Only on the basis of the accusations, if the executive demolishes the property/properties of such an accused person without following the due process of law, it would strike at the basic principle of rule of law and is not permissible. The executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person accused is guilty and, therefore, punish him by demolishing his residential/commercial property/properties. Such an act of the executive would be transgressing its limits.” It also listed certain guidelines to curb ‘bulldozer justice’.

Insertion of words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble

Judgment Name: Dr. Balram Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Another (November 25, 2024)

Bench: CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar

Articles and Acts Involved: {The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976}

Judgment Brief and Decision: In this case, the bench heard the writ petitions challenging the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble to the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act in 1976. The challenge is on various grounds, retrospectivity of the insertion in 1976, resulting in falsity as the Constitution was adopted on the 26th day of November 1949; the word ‘secular’ was deliberately eschewed by the Constituent Assembly, and the word ‘socialist’ fetters and restricts the economic policy choice vesting in the elected government, which represents the will of the people. It was observed that the writ petitions were filed in 2020, which means 44 years after the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ became integral to the Preamble, making the prayers particularly questionable. The bench opined, “The additions to the Preamble have not restricted or impeded legislations or policies pursued by elected governments, provided such actions did not infringe upon fundamental and constitutional rights or the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, we do not find any legitimate cause or justification for challenging this constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years.” It added, “The circumstances do not warrant this Court’s exercise of discretion to undertake an exhaustive examination, as the constitutional position remains unambiguous, negating the need for a detailed academic pronouncement.” Therefore, the top court said that it did not find any justification or need to issue a notice in the present writ petitions, and dismissed the same.