Important Judgments of 2024: Legal Bites Year Update

The Article explains 'Important Judgments of 2024: Legal Bites Year Update' and the cases related to the Electoral Bonds, Environmental Pollution Control Authority, Pension Rules, Delhi High Court's decision in the context of Reebok India Company and so on. The author's idea is to make all the readers well-versed with the case laws decided by the High Courts or Supreme Court.

Case laws are important to have clarity on any subject matter of law, so the author has tried to make a clear concept of various spheres. Various cases bring certain changes which are generally helpful to people to understand the dynamic aspect of law with the changing times.

Important Judgments of 2024: Legal Bites Year Update

1. Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. Ajay Khera & Ors.[1]

The case is based on the Environment Pollution Control Authority's (EPCA) suggestions, which stress how important it is to quickly switch heavy-duty diesel vehicles to choices that are better for the environment, especially those that meet the Bharat Stage VI (BS-VI) emission standards. The Court agreed that alternative fuel technologies aren't perfect for long-distance travel and supported using BS-VI heavy-duty diesel vehicles as a cleaner short-term option.

Click Here and read more about this case.

2. Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora v. State of Gujarat & Anr.[2]

The Supreme Court after interpreting the Pension Rules stated that it is imperative to give a holistic meaning to Rule 25. The court stated that the interpretation as stated by the respondents is very restrictive and makes the said provision applicable only to such persons who have been ‘expressly’ absorbed by the State Government from the Central Government. The court enunciated that the appellant had obtained an NOC from the government before participating in the recruitment drive following which he had tendered a formal resignation upon his selection.

Click Here and read more about this case.

3. Reebok India Company v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.[3]

The Court evaluated that the option of ‘conversion’ made statutorily available to the relevant organisation or class/classes of organisations was not a vested right conferred to any Company and the rules being made more stringent in terms of the RoC requiring to satisfy itself in context of aspects related to the net worth of the company and whether there is any ongoing investigation or inspection against the company, was made as such to better serve the interests of all related parties to such transactions/activities.

Delhi High Court has upheld the Registrar of Companies' decision to refuse Reebok India's request to change its status to a Limited Liability Company.

Click Here and read more about this case.

4. Prabhat Kumar Mishra @ Prabhat Mishra v. State of U.P. & Anr. [4]

The Supreme Court dismissed the caste-based discrimination charges citing insufficient evidence and emphasized the necessity of clear mens rea for abetment. Ultimately, it concluded that the charges constituted an abuse of the legal process.

Click Here and read more about this case.

5. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.[5]

On 15th February 2024, in a unanimous verdict, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC), led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), deemed the Electoral Bonds scheme as "unconstitutional." The SC, while scrutinizing the legality of the electoral bonds scheme, ruled that anonymous electoral bonds infringe upon the right to information and Article 19(1)(a).

Click Here and read more about this case.

6. Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India & Ors. [6]

The primary concern of the petitions revolved around the decline in the securities market, the downfall of redressal for investors, and speculation regarding public sector banks' dealings with the Adani Group — the demand for proper investigation aimed at the protection of the investor. The petitioner highlighted the importance of transparency and accountability. The Court clarified that the Expert Committee and SEBI would work in collaboration with each other. Mr Prashant Bhushan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner broadly pressed his case for a direction to constitute an SIT to oversee the SEBI investigation into the Adani group.

This case focuses on market oversight, the requirement of proper corporate governance and investor confidence, necessitating a comprehensive examination of the allegations and regulatory responses to ensure fair and transparent market practices.

Click Here and read more about this case.

7. Shalini Dharmani v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. [7]

The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to re-evaluate the entire aspect concerning the importance of granting Child Care Leave laws, while also making sure that the objectives of the Rights of People with Disabilities Act are also covered to ensure that even the working mothers of differently abled children are properly safeguarded under the Act.

Click Here and read more about this case.

8. XYZ & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [8]

This case involved a woman who was over 24 weeks pregnant and sought permission for a medical termination due to undergoing cancer treatment.

Click Here and read more about this case.

9. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh [9]

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment allowing the sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) for reservation purposes. This ruling marks a significant departure from the 2004 judgment in E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2004), which prohibited the sub-classification of SCs and STs for reservation.

Click Here and read more about this case.

10. Minakshi Chaudhary v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation [10]

The High Court's decision reinforced the importance of maternity leave as both a statutory entitlement and a fundamental right. By granting the petitioner 180 days of maternity leave and directing RSRTC to amend its regulations, the court ensured that women employees must be treated equally and provided the necessary support during their maternity period.

Click Here and read more about this case.

11. Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India [11]

The judgment in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024), marks a significant step in upholding the constitutional principles of equality and dignity, affirming that caste discrimination has no place in the country’s prison system.

Click Here and read more about this case.

12. Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors.

[12]

This case focuses on prisoners' rights under Articles 21 and 39-A, with Suhas Chakma filing a writ petition under Article 32 to address overcrowded prisons and inadequate legal aid.

Click Here and read more about this case.

13. Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. & Ors. [13]

This judgment sets a precedent for prioritizing legally recognized documents like the School Leaving Certificate over the Aadhar Card in age verification disputes within motor accident claims. It also underscores the responsibility of appellate courts to ensure just outcomes in compensation-related

Click Here and read more about this case.

14. Lenin Kumar Ray v. M/s. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. [14]

The case Lenin Kumar Ray v. M/s. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. (2024) primarily concerns the classification of an employee as a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the validity of his termination by M/s. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the employee’s role met the criteria of "workman" and the legality of the termination procedure followed by the management.

Click Here and read more about this case.

15. Anjum Kadari & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [15]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed the limits of state intervention in religious educational institutions, safeguarding secularism, equality, and educational rights under the Constitution.

Click Here and read more about this case.

16. Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures

[16]

The Court recognized that the right to a home is not only a personal aspiration but also a basic human right embedded in the social and economic fabric of the country.

Click Here and read more about this case.

................................Further, more to be added

References

[1] Civil Appeal No. 3798 of 2019

[2] Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 16030 of 2018

[3] W.P.(C) 1546/2021

[4] Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 9591 of 2022

[5] Writ Petition (C) No. 880 of 2017

[6] Writ Petition (C) No. 162 of 2023

[7] Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.16864/2021

[8] Criminal Writ Petition No.2794 of 2024

[9] 2024 INSC 562

[10] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15769/2016

[11] Writ Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023

[12] Writ Petition No. 1082 of 2020

[13] SLP(C) Nos. 23939-23940 of 2023

[14] SLP (C) No.12876 of 2024

[15] Special Leave Petition (C) No.8541 of 2024

[16] Writ Petition (Civil) No.295 OF 2022

Important Links