On 23 October 2024, the Supreme Court upheld state governments’ power to regulate industrial alcohol in an 8:1 majority. In her dissent, Justice B.V. Nagarathna expressed concern that with the majority’s view, states could impose taxes, cesses and surcharges despite the Union having legislated on those aspects. She saw it as a “breakdown” of the federal structure. Her concern was an echo of her dissent in another nine-judge bench case. SCO Explains! Meanwhile, here's all the materials you need on this case. Case background: https://www.scobserver.in/cases/state-of-uttar-pradesh-v-lalta-prasad-vaish-states-power-to-regulate-industrial-alcohol/ Day 1 Arguments: https://www.scobserver.in/reports/regulating-industrial-alcohol-day-1-federal-structure-cant-be-nullified-by-reducing-states-powers-uttar-pradesh-argues/ Day 2 Arguments: https://www.scobserver.in/reports/regulating-industrial-alcohol-day-2-states-power-extends-to-any-liquid-with-alcohol-not-just-alcoholic-beverages-petitioners-argue/ Day 3 Arguments: https://www.scobserver.in/reports/regulating-industrial-alcohol-day-3-unions-power-to-regulate-alcohol-at-a-higher-pedestal-than-states-powers-attorney-general-argues/ Day 4 Arguments: https://www.scobserver.in/reports/regulating-industrial-alcohol-day-4-constitution-framers-wanted-union-to-control-industries-solicitor-general-argues/ Day 5 Arguments: https://www.scobserver.in/reports/regulating-industrial-alcohol-day-5-union-must-exercise-complete-control-over-industries-to-protect-national-interests/ Day 6 Arguments: https://www.scobserver.in/reports/regulating-industrial-alcohol-day-6-judgement-reserved/ Judgement Matrix: https://www.scobserver.in/reports/regulating-industrial-alcohol-judgement-matrix/ Judgement Summary: https://www.scobserver.in/reports/regulating-industrial-alcohol-judgement-summary-state-of-up-v-lalta-prasad-vaish-intoxicating-liquor/
On 8 November, 7 judges of the Supreme Court overruled Azeez Basha v Union of India (1967) which held that Aligarh Muslim University did not have a minority status under Article 30 of the Constitution. While the 7-judge bench left the decision of AMU's minority status open for a regular bench to decide, it laid down certain parameters to consider while determining the minority status of an institution. We explain the judgement in this video.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud retired from the Supreme Court on Sunday, 10 November, concluding an eight-year long tenure during which he authored over 600 judgements. In this video, we highlight 10 judgments that not only shaped the legal jurisprudence but also significantly influenced public life.
In the late 1970s, the Supreme Court introduced the innovation of Public interest litigation. The idea was to improve the access of marginalised individuals and groups to the higher courts through proceedings brought by unaffected parties. How has this promise and purpose played out since then? As part of our special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court, Advocate Gulnar A. Mistry traces the changing understanding of locus standi through the utterances and decisions of the Court in PIL matters. The result, she argues, is a haphazard jurisprudence that creates uncertainty in the mind of a bona fide seeker of public-oriented justice.Read now!
Last week, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act in a 4:1 majority. There were three opinions and multiple issues to consider. While the majority and the concurring opinions upheld the constitutional validity, J.B. Pardiwala in his dissent provided strong reasons to strike it down. We bring you the key highlights of the decision.
In star-led commercial films, the courtroom has traditionally been presented as the hallowed ground that the wronged enter with innocent optimism. However, the Marathi-language film 'Court', has shed this dramatic trapping, choosing instead to focus on the not-so-rosy realities of the judicial system.In her essay as part of our special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court, film critic Anna Vetticad argues that the portrayal of the judiciary extends beyond entertainment—it serves as a mirror reflecting societal attitudes toward justice.
Recently, the Supreme Court invoked its discretionary powers under Article 142 to grant Atul Kumar, a Dalit student, admission to the Indian Institute of Technology in Dhanbad. Article 142 is a unique provision that grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any necessary order to secure ‘complete justice’. We explore the many facets of this provision and how it has evolved over the years.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court started live streaming Constitution Bench hearings on YouTube for the first time. Recently, as the Court has started livestreaming select Division Bench cases, the lines between public interest and institutional posturing have become somewhat blurrier and concerns about performative justice remain relevant.
On 23 September 2024, a Division Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala held that viewing, possession and storage of material depicting minors engaged in sexual activity constitutes an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’). This judgement stands out globally, as most countries still do not have clear laws that explicitly criminalise viewing and possession of ‘child pornography.’ What does the judgment say? Watch Supreme Court Observer's video explainer to find out!
Standing in India's capital, the Supreme Court's iconic circular design isn't just a striking architectural feature—it is meant to symbolise order amidst the diversity of the people it serves. For 75 years, this institution has balanced its duality, between its constitutional values and colonial history, the right and the left, and centre and state. From the courtroom’s high bench to the flowing black gowns, the Court mirrors a complex journey between tradition and transformation. Commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court, SCO has published a special series, which includes Rahela Khorakiwala's essay on the top court's architecture and its symbolism. Read now!
On 18 August, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognisance of the rape and murder of a woman trainee doctor at Kolkata’s R.G. Kar Medical College. A bench of CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra reasoned that they took up the matter despite “seasoned judges” of the Calcutta High Court dealing with it because the case concerned the question of safety of doctors across the country. So far, the Court has heard the case 4 times. It set up a National Task Force to formulate a pan-India protocol for the safety of doctors and has reviewed the CBI’s status report three times. We bring you the story so far.
In 2018, West Bengal withdrew its consent to be under the CBI's jurisdiction. In 2021, as the CBI's activities in West Bengal continued, the state government filed an Original Suit in the Supreme Court arguing that the Union government had unlawfully and unconstitutionally deployed the CBI. The Union argued that the case was not maintainable at all, as it did not control the CBI, and that Original Suits can only be filed against the State. The Court's decision to uphold the maintainability of this petition is likely the beginning of an important debate on Union-state dynamics in the area of law and order. As the Court gears up to hear the case, which is likely to be heard this month, we explain everything that has happened so far.
Is the Supreme Court a man's world? 75 Years after the establishment of the Supreme Court, the institution has seen just 11 women judges in its corridors. Where does the problem lie? As part of Supreme Court Observer's special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court, we're presenting this video, capturing the highs and the lows for gender diversity at the top court. Check out the special series now! We've written about the very first judges of the Supreme Court, on the Court's architecture and its meaning, Courts in cinema and more!
On 1 August 2024, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the validity of sub-classification within the reserved categories in a 6:1 majority. In an interview with the Supreme Court Observer, Dr Anup Surendranath, Prof. of Law at the National Law University, Delhi discussed the legal and social impact of the decision. He believes that while the judgement gets a lot right, its group-based approach to reservation and the extension of the ‘creamy layer’ exception to SC/STs, raise questions.
As a part of our special series celebrating 75 years of the Supreme Court of India, we published a story on the evolution of Public Interest Litigation jurisprudence since it was conceived in the late 1970s. Does it still function as a tool for social justice? We also published a story on the lives, interests, and careers of the first eight judges of the Court. Though the ensemble had things in common, their individual stories revealed many differences.
On 1 August 2024, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the validity of sub-classification within the SC/ST groups in a 6:1 majority. The Majority also noted that the Scheduled Castes notified under the Presidential List of 1950 were not a homogeneous group as they faced varying degrees of discrimination. This decision overrules the five-judge bench decision of the Court in E.V. Chinnaiah v State of A.P. (2004). As many as six opinions were written in this 565-page judgement. In this video, we break down the key findings and observations of the Court.
When it comes to Constitution Bench activity, the first half of 2024 was action-packed for the Supreme Court. Currently six Constitution Bench cases heard by a bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud are pending final verdicts. These decisions are expected to be delivered before the Chief retires in November. We summarise the cases in this explainer.
Yesterday, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in a 8:1 majority held that state government's have the power to tax mineral land and mineral rights under Entry 49 and 50 of the State List. The issue was pending for over 25 years with various stakeholders, including mining companies, arguing that the state government's cannot tax mines and minerals after the enactment of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. This contention was rejected by the majority. However, Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented. She stated that the decision of the majority can lead to "adverse economic consequences." SCO Explains the judgement and reasons in the majority and dissenting opinions.
On 12 July, the Supreme Court granted Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal interim bail. He was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under charges of money laundering. The ED claimed that he was the kingpin of the Delhi Liquor policy scam, where he allegedly demanded bribes and kickbacks for Aam Aadmi Party leaders and granted favours to private players in the liquor business. A lot has transpired since his arrest in March 2024. Kejriwal has petitions pending at different stages in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. SCO Explains the whole story of Arvind Kejriwal.
Justices N. Kotiswar Singh and R. Mahadevan took oath as judges to the Supreme Court today (18 July 2024)! With their appointment, the bench is at its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges. The Collegium had recommended both names on 11 July 2024. Though factors considered by the Collegium are not codified or mandated, we know from recent recommendations that diversity of various kinds, is an important parameter. In recommending Justice Singh, the Collegium noted that he would be the first Supreme Court judge from the state of Manipur. For Justice Mahadevan, the Collegium bypassed the seniority principle to ensure representation from a backward community. How do the new appointments impact diversity at the top court? We explain!