A Constitution Bench is a bench of the Supreme Court having five or more judges on it. These benches are not a routine phenomenon. Approximately 12 constitution bench judgments were delivered by the Supreme Court in the year 2024. 

Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors 

Ratio: 4:1 

Judges: Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra 

Held:

• The Court recognized that anonymous electoral bonds infringe upon citizens' fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a). This demonstrates the Court's states on transparency as essential to democratic functioning. 
• The Court appears to have found that the right to information about political funding is intrinsically linked to making informed voting choices - voters need to know who is funding political parties to make meaningful democratic decisions. 
• The constitutional challenge succeeded on the grounds that the scheme's anonymity provisions failed to strike an appropriate balance between privacy in political donations and the public's right to know about electoral funding sources. 

Read More 

High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 

Ratio: 4 :1 

Judges: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Abhay S Oka, JB Pardiwala, Pankaj Mithal, and Manoj Misra 

Held:

• The constitution bench overturned the 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment and set aside the automatic stay vacation rule and noted its potential adverse impact on litigants. 
• The important parameters for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 were summarized by the bench. 

Read More 

Sita Soren v. Union of India 

Ratio: Unanimous 

Judges: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, Sanjay Kumar, and Manoj Misra 

Held: 

• The Supreme Court fundamentally redefined the scope of parliamentary immunity by ruling that accepting bribes for votes or speeches is not protected under Articles 105(2) and 194(2), establishing that the crime of bribery is complete at the moment of accepting illegal gratification, regardless of subsequent legislative actions. 
• The Court addressed a critical logical flaw in the PV Narasimha Rao judgment by pointing out its paradoxical protection of legislators who followed through on corrupt bargains while potentially punishing those who voted independently despite taking bribes - a distinction that undermined anti-corruption efforts. 
• The ruling strengthens anti-corruption measures by clarifying that parliamentary privileges were never intended to shield criminal conduct like bribery, marking a significant step toward greater accountability in legislative bodies and aligning constitutional interpretation with the broader goals of preventing corruption in public office. 

Read More

Mineral Area Development v. M/S Steel Authority of India & Ors 

Ratio: 8:1 

Judges: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, SC Sharma, and AG Masih 

Held: 

• The court rejected the submission to give MADA Judgment prospective effect. 
• However, it laid down some conditions to balance the interests of states and assesses: 
  • States cannot levy taxes under the relevant entries for transactions before 1^st April 2005. 
  • Payment of tax demands to be staggered over 12 years starting 1^st April 2026. 
  • Interest and penalties on demands for the period before 25^th July 2024 to be waived for all assessees. 
• The bench also explained the application of doctrine of prospective overruling. 

Read more: 

State of Punjab and Ors. v. Davinder Singh and Ors. 

Ratio: 6:1 

Judges: CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma 

Held: 

• The bench upheld the sub-classifications among the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes so that benefits of reservation can reach to the weaker of the weakest sections of the society. 

Read more: 

In Re: Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955 

Ratio: 4:1 

Judges: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra   

Held: 

• The Supreme Court upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, finding it constitutional and essential to address Assam’s unique demographic and social issues stemming from historical migration.  
• The Court ruled that:  
  • Parliament has the legislative authority to enact Section 6A, as provided by Article 11 of the Constitution.  
  • Section 6A does not violate the equality principle under Article 14, as Assam’s situation justifies different treatment.  
  • Section 6A does not infringe upon cultural rights under Article 29, as it selectively grants citizenship while respecting Assamese cultural identity.  
  • Section 6A aligns with Article 355, addressing security concerns related to migration in a structured way.  
  • Procedural safeguards under Section 6A, including the Foreigners Tribunals, provide a fair system for citizenship claims. 

Read more: 

State Of U.P. v. M/S. Lalta Prasad Vaish 

Ratio: 8:1 

Judges: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored majority judgment], Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S. Oka, B.V. Nagarathna [dissented], J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma And Augustine George Masih 

Held: 

• States have the authority to regulate denatured spirit or industrial alcohol, classifying it under “intoxicating liquor” as per Entry 8 of the State List.  
• The majority opinion observed that the term should not be narrowly defined, including substances that could be misused for human consumption.  
• In dissent, Justice Nagarathna argued that industrial alcohol is specifically not meant for human consumption, stated differing interpretations of the term “intoxicating liquor.” 

Read more: 

Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra 

Ratio: 7:2 

Judges: CJI DY Chandrachud [authored majority opinion], Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B.V. Nagarathna [partially concurred], Sudhanshu Dhulia [dissented], J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih 

Held:

• The Supreme Court overruled the 1983 Sanjeev Coke case, which had allowed the State to redistribute all private properties for the common good, also states that only properties meeting specific criteria as "material resources" and "of the community" can be subject to redistribution. This decision limits the scope of state intervention in private property.   

Read more: 

M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi & Ors 

Ratio: Unanimous 

Judges: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy [authored the judgment], PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra 

Held: 

• The Supreme Court in this case laid down the principles when a judgment can be declared as per incuriam as: 
  • A decision is per incuriam only when the overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue in question. 
    • It must be inconsistent provision and a glaring case of obtrusive omission. 
    • This doctrine applies to only ratio decidendi and does not apply to obiter dicta. 
  • If a court doubts the correctness of a precedent, the appropriate step is to either follow the decision or refer it to a larger bench for reconsideration. 
  • For applying this doctrine, it has to be shown that some part of the decision is based on reasoning which was demonstrably wrong. 
    • In exceptional instances, whereby obvious inadvertence or oversight, a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply. 

Read more: 

Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors 

Ratio: Unanimous 

Judges: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Manoj Misra 

Held: 

• The Supreme Court affirmed and strengthened the principle that selection criteria cannot be altered once a recruitment process has begun, unless such modifications are explicitly permitted by the governing rules - effectively validating the "rules of the game" doctrine from the Manjusree case. 
• While the Court recognized the authority's discretion to establish selection procedures and benchmarks, it states that any such criteria must be clearly communicated before the recruitment process begins, ensuring transparency and fairness for all candidates. 
• The ruling resolved the conflict between Tej Prakash and Manjusree in favor of maintaining procedural fairness, establishing that post-facto introduction of new criteria (such as interview cut-offs) would unfairly disadvantage candidates who entered the process under different understood terms. 

Read More  

Aligarh Muslim University Through Its Registrar Faizan Mustafa v. Naresh Agarwal 

Ratio: 4:3 

Judges: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant ,JB Pardiwala, Dipankar Datta, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma 

Held: 

• The Supreme Court significantly revised the understanding of minority institutions by ruling that statutory incorporation does not automatically disqualify an institution from claiming minority status under Article 30, overturning a central holding of the Azeez Basha case and provides substance over form in determining minority institution status. 
• The majority judgment established important criteria for determining minority institution status, including:  
• Looking at the actual genesis and "brain" behind the institution rather than just formal incorporation 
• Examining the source of funds and land acquisition 
• Considering the minority community's role in establishment 
• Recognizing that institutions need not exclusively serve minorities but must predominantly benefit them 
• The Court drew an important distinction between 'incorporation' and 'establishment', holding that statutory incorporation is merely a formal act that doesn't negate the minority community's role in establishing an institution. 
• The dissenting opinions highlighted different perspectives on minority institution criteria:  
  • Justice Surya Kant states the need for both establishment and administration by minorities 
  • Justice Datta took a definitive stance against AMU's minority status 
  • Justice Sharma stressed the importance of independent minority control in administration 
• Rather than making a final determination about AMU's minority status, the Court established these broader principles and left the specific question about AMU to be decided by a regular bench based on these new parameters. 

Read More  

Central Organisation for Railways Electrification v. M/S ECI Spic Smo MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company 

Ratio: 4:1 

Judges: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra 

Held:

• The Supreme Court reinforced principles of fairness in arbitration by ruling against unilateral arbitrator appointment clauses in PSU contracts, recognizing that such provisions could compromise the neutrality and independence of the arbitration process. 
• While acknowledging PSUs' right to maintain panels of arbitrators, the Court established that they cannot force private parties to choose arbitrators exclusively from these panels, thus striking a balance between institutional convenience and party autonomy. 
• The majority view prioritized the fundamental principle of natural justice that requires arbitration proceedings to be free from appearance of bias, effectively limiting the scope of unilateral appointment powers previously exercised by PSUs. 
• Justice Roy's dissenting opinion provides a different perspective focusing on party autonomy, suggesting that unilateral appointments should be valid if the arbitrator meets eligibility criteria and isn't disqualified under Schedule 7, states the tension between contractual freedom and procedural fairness in arbitration.