The judiciary serves as the guardian of our Constitution and the custodian of justice, entrusted with upholding the rule of law and protecting fundamental rights. Yet, not all judgments fulfil this lofty ideal. Over the course of 2024, a troubling trend has emerged in some decisions delivered by the higher judiciary—decisions that appear to weaken the very principles they are meant to defend. From dismissals that turn a blind eye to systemic inequities, to interpretations that undermine protective legislation, to refusals to check executive excesses, these rulings set unsettling precedents that threaten the social fabric and erode public trust in the judiciary.
The prolonged incarceration of undertrials and accused individuals in high-profile cases has brought to light significant concerns about access to justice in India. Despite the Supreme Court’s emphasis on bail as a critical issue, many undertrials continue to languish in jail for years without trial or bail. This stark disparity is particularly evident in cases linked to the Delhi riots conspiracy and Bhima-Koregaon violence, where delays in judicial processes and repeated adjournments have left several individuals in indefinite detention.
In many of these cases, marginalised communities have borne the brunt of decisions that failed to consider the lived realities of caste-based discrimination, religious intolerance, or economic disparity. The dilution of the SC/ST Act, the dismissal of pleas against electoral opacity, and judicial inaction in cases of arbitrary demolitions exemplify a judiciary that, at times, prioritises procedural technicalities over substantive justice. By doing so, these judgments risk emboldening discrimination, stifling dissent, and rendering fundamental rights illusory for those who need them most.
This piece critically examines some of the most contentious decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts in 2024, highlighting how they deviate from the constitutional promise of equality, justice, and fraternity. The implications of these rulings extend far beyond the immediate litigants—they ripple through society, signalling a judiciary increasingly reluctant to challenge entrenched power structures or uphold accountability. In dismissing challenges to executive actions or eroding protective statutes, courts not only fail individuals seeking redress but also weaken the safeguards meant to protect the foundational values of our democracy. This trend raises critical questions about judicial independence and the role of courts in confronting systemic inequities, protecting minority rights, and acting as a counterbalance to state overreach.
As the gap between constitutional ideals and judicial practice widens, these judgments serve as a grim reminder that even the most progressive legal framework is only as strong as its interpretation and enforcement. If left unchecked, such rulings threaten to normalise a jurisprudence that prioritises expediency over equity, technicality over humanity, and conformity over justice. This calls for a deeper reckoning with the judiciary’s role as a sentinel of rights in a diverse and dynamic society.
Life and Liberty of Citizens: Constitutional courts inconsistency on bail pleas has left individuals vulnerable to an opaque system of justice delivery. Below is an overview of some notable cases, highlighting the inconsistencies in bail decisions and the systemic challenges contributing to these prolonged incarcerations.
| S. No. | Name of the undertrial | Case name | Number of days in jail | Case status | Bail status |
| 1. | Umar Khalid | Delhi riots conspiracy case | Completed 4 years in custody on September 14, 2024. | Trial yet to be started | Denied bail by Supreme Court in October 2022, Approached Supreme Court, but later withdrew his SLP on February 2024 after 13 adjournments.
Khalid’s regular bail plea remains pending before the Delhi High Court. Khalid had been denied bail by Delhi court on May 28, 2024.
|
| 2. | Gulfisha Fatima | Delhi riots conspiracy case | Will be completing 5 years of custody on April 9, 2025. | Trial yet to be started | Regular bail plea remains pending before Delhi HC since 2022- has been in custody without bail.
In November 2024, Supreme Court had declined to hear the bail plea for Fatima, directing Delhi HC to do the same.
|
| 3. | Sharjeel Imam | Delhi riots conspiracy case | Will be completing 5 years of custody on January 28, 2025. | Trial yet to be started | In October 2024, Supreme Court had declined to hear the bail plea for Imam, directing Delhi HC to do the same.
Imam’s regular bail plea remains pending before the Delhi High Court. Imam’s bail application, first filed in April 2022, has been listed over 60 times without reaching a final resolution. Delhi HC had granted statutory bail to Imam in Sedition case on May 29, 2024
|
| 4. | Meeran Haider | Delhi riots conspiracy case | Will be completing 5 years of custody on April 1, 2025. | Trial yet to be started | On September 6, Haider had withdrawn his plea from the Delhi High Court to approach the Trial Court. He has been in custody without bail.
Delhi Court had denied bail in April 2022. After which, he had approached the Delhi High Court. However, the application had been listed 72 times without any hearing. In August 2024, Haider was granted interim bail for 10 days by Delhi Court on humanitarian grounds.
|
| 5. | Khalid Saifi | Delhi riots conspiracy case | Will be completing 5 years of custody on February 26, 2025. | Trial yet to be started | Bail plea remains pending before Delhi HC since 2022- has been in custody without bail. Saifi’s bail plea was listed 44 times before the special bench of of Mridul and Bhatnagar, with judgments reserved twice.
|
| 6. | Tasleem Ahmed | Delhi riots conspiracy case | Will be completing 5 years of custody on April 8, 2025. | Trial yet to be started | Bail denied in February 2024 by Delhi Court |
| 7. | Shifa-Ur-Rehman | Delhi riots conspiracy case | Will be completing 5 years of custody on April 26, 2025. | Trial yet to be started | In October 2024, The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to allow an application filed by Rehman seeking an early hearing of his bail plea, citing his 71-year-old mother’s health.
Bail plea remains pending before Delhi HC since 2022- has been in custody without bail. |
| 8. | Surendra Gadling | Bhima-Koregaon violence case | Will be completing 7 years of custody on June 6, 2025. | Trial yet to be started | On July 26, 2024, the Bombay High Court rejected the default bail to advocate Surendra Gadling.
Notably, Gadling was earlier refused default bail in December 2021 by the Bombay HC.
|
| 9. | Jyoti Jagtap | Bhima-Koregaon violence case | Will be completing 5 years of custody in September, 2020. | Trial yet to be started | Jagtap’s bail plea remains pending in the Supreme Court. Notice on her bail plea was issued by the top court in August 2023. Hearings have taken place, however, no concrete order, other than that of adjournments, have come.
In July 2024, the Supreme Court had expressed that it was not inclined to grant interim bail to Jagtap. In February, 2022, a special NIA court rejected Jagtap’s bail application, which was later upheld by the Bombay High Court in October 2022.
|
| 10. | Mahesh Raut | Bhima-Koregaon violence case | Will be completing 7 years of custody on June 6, 2025. | Trial yet to be started | Bail granted by the Bombay HC in September 2023, but due to a stay on the order, extended from time to time by the top court, he has remained in jail till date.
His petition is yet to be heard by the Supreme Court. In June 2024, Raut was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court that allowed him to attend the ceremonies related to the last rites of his grandmother. |
This piece further looks at the calendar of justice delays and denials:
- January 2024
Supreme Court dismisses petition for SIT/CBI probe into Adani Group allegations, upholds SEBI investigation
On January 3, the Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, dismissed petitions seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the allegations raised by Hindenburg Research regarding stock price manipulation by the Adani Group. The bench determined that there was no basis to question the ongoing investigation by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The Court upheld SEBI’s regulatory amendments concerning Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPI) and Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR), asserting that these regulations had been appropriately tightened and did not suffer from any legal flaws.
The Court further noted that SEBI had already completed investigations into 22 of the 24 cases cited and directed that the remaining two be concluded within three months. It also rejected the petitioners’ reliance on external reports, including those from the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), as inadequate grounds to challenge SEBI’s investigation.
This judgment is problematic because it ignored the serious concerns raised by the Hindenburg report, which implicated major stock manipulation by the Adani Group. By dismissing calls for a more thorough investigation, including the potential involvement of an SIT or CBI, the Court effectively downplayed the potential systemic risks posed by such corporate malpractices. The decision also underscored a lack of accountability in handling allegations of significant financial misconduct.
2. March 2024
Supreme Court restricts disclosure of Electoral Bond details, limiting transparency
On March 18, 2024, the Supreme Court, in a hearing led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, refused to direct the disclosure of electoral bond details from the first issuance date, March 1, 2018. The Court reiterated its previous order, which only required the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose information related to bonds sold between April 12, 2019, and February 15, 2024, when the scheme was declared unconstitutional. The April 12, 2019, interim order had directed political parties to submit details of donations received via electoral bonds to the Election Commission of India (ECI).
The Court clarified that its decision to limit disclosure to bonds sold after April 12, 2019, was a “conscious choice,” ensuring that donors were notified of potential disclosure from that date. Chief Justice Chandrachud explained that altering this date would require a substantive modification of the judgment, which could not be done through a miscellaneous application. As a result, the application seeking broader disclosure from March 2018 was dismissed as non-maintainable.
This decision was concerning because it continued to restrict transparency in electoral bond transactions, particularly for the period before April 2019. By not allowing full disclosure of all electoral bond sales, the Court missed an opportunity to address concerns over opaque political funding, potentially hindering efforts to expose the influence of undisclosed donations on electoral processes.
3. April 2024
Dismissal by Delhi HC of PIL challenging dissolution of Maulana Azad Education Foundation
On April 16, the Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the dissolution of the Maulana Azad Education Foundation (MAEF), a decision issued by the Ministry of Minority Affairs (MoMA). The petitioners, led by Professor Syeda Saiyidain Hameda and represented by Senior Advocate Anand Grover, argued that the dissolution order dated February 7, 2024, was unlawful, influenced by improper motives, and violated statutory provisions, the foundation’s Memorandum of Association, and its rules. They contended that the MAEF, being an autonomous society, should not be subject to the directions of the Union government, and that its closure contradicted the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19, and 21 concerning educational rights for backward minorities.
The union, however, presented minutes from a General Body meeting held on March 7, where the decision to dissolve the MAEF was made unanimously. The court noted that the General Body, which included key members such as the Union Minister of Minority Affairs and Vice Chancellors of major universities, had decided to shut down the foundation. The Ministry also argued that the MAEF was obsolete, citing its lack of additional value compared to the infrastructural changes introduced by the government over the years. The court found no irregularities in the process and upheld the dissolution as a “well-considered decision” made in compliance with the foundation’s Bye Laws and the relevant provisions of the Act of 1860.
This dismissal was deeply concerning as it overlooked significant legal and constitutional issues raised by the petitioners. By blindly endorsing the government’s rationale for dissolving a key institution like the MAEF, the Court failed to consider the broader implications on the educational rights of minority communities. The decision undermines the principle of autonomy for educational bodies and sets a dangerous precedent for the arbitrary dismantling of institutions that serve marginalised groups. It also ignored the potential long-term impact on the Right to Education for educationally backward minorities, effectively sidelining their constitutional entitlements.
Supreme Court rejects pleas for 100% EVM-VVPAT cross-verification
On April 26, the Supreme Court, in a significant verdict, rejected pleas seeking 100% cross-verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) data with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) records. A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta delivered the judgment after reserving orders on April 18 and seeking technical clarifications from the Election Commission. The Court’s ruling dismissed requests for reverting to ballot paper voting and fully verifying EVMs with VVPAT slips, concluding that the existing protocols and technical aspects were sufficient.
However, the Court issued two important directions. First, it mandated that, starting May 1, 2024, the Symbol Loading Unit (SLU) used in VVPATs be sealed and stored for 45 days post-election results, with candidates’ representatives allowed to sign the seals. Second, it directed that 5% of the EVMs in each assembly constituency be checked for tampering by engineers from the manufacturers, on request by specific candidates, within seven days of result declaration. If tampering is found, the expenses for the verification process will be refunded. The Court also suggested that the Election Commission explore the possibility of electronic machines for counting VVPAT slips and using bar codes for party symbols.
This ruling is troubling as it disregards the growing calls for more stringent measures to ensure the integrity of electronic voting systems. By rejecting the call for 100% cross-verification, the Court failed to acknowledge the widespread concerns regarding the transparency of EVMs in light of past controversies. The directions for post-election verification, though somewhat reassuring, do not go far enough in addressing the vulnerabilities in the current system. While the Court has proposed some safeguards, such as post-election checks on a small sample of EVMs, these measures may not provide sufficient assurance about the accuracy and reliability of the voting process as a whole. The failure to adopt more comprehensive verification could contribute to continuing doubts about the fairness of elections and undermine public confidence in the electoral system.
4. May 2024
Supreme Court dismisses petition seeking disqualification of PM Modi for hate speech during election campaigning
On May 14, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking the disqualification of Prime Minister Narendra Modi from elections for allegedly making hate speeches and invoking religion during his campaign. The petition, filed by one Fatima, claimed that PM Modi had sought votes in the name of God and made statements at a rally in Banswara, Rajasthan on April 21, 2024, aimed at creating enmity between groups. The petitioner argued that such actions violated the Model Code of Conduct, the Representation of the People Act, and the Indian Penal Code.
The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, expressed reluctance to entertain the matter, emphasising that the petitioner should have approached the Election Commission of India (ECI) first, rather than directly seeking judicial intervention under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. The Court pointed out that it was the petitioner’s responsibility to approach the appropriate authorities before bringing such matters to the Court. Following this, the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition, and it was dismissed as withdrawn. Additionally, another petition that sought directions for the ECI to act against PM Modi and Union Minister Anurag Thakur for similar allegations of hate speeches was also dismissed.
This decision raises concerns as it reflects the Court’s reluctance to address serious allegations of hate speech made by a sitting Prime Minister during an election campaign. By dismissing the petition on procedural grounds (instead of keeping it pending until procedures were completed) and insisting on the need to approach the Election Commission first, the Court missed an opportunity to evaluate the substance of the allegations. This approach potentially undermines the integrity of the electoral process, as it avoids scrutinising the actions of political leaders, particularly when the allegations involve a prominent figure like the Prime Minister. The Court’s failure to engage with such a critical issue may lead to a perception of inaction in the face of actions that could threaten the fairness of elections.
5. June 2024
Bombay High court upholds college dress code, dismissing hijab ban challenge
On June 26, the Bombay High Court dismissed a petition by nine students from NG Acharya and DK Marathe College in Mumbai, challenging a newly implemented dress code that prohibited the wearing of the hijab on campus. The students argued that the dress code violated their fundamental rights to freedom of religion and personal expression. However, a division bench comprising Justices AS Chandurkar and Rajesh S Patil upheld the dress code, stating that it was in the larger academic interest of the students and aligned with maintaining discipline and uniformity within the college environment.
The Court relied on previous judgments, including the 2003 case of Miss Fathema Hussain v. Bharat Education Society, where it was held that enforcing a dress code, including prohibiting the hijab, did not violate a student’s fundamental right to freedom of conscience and religion under Article 25 of the Constitution. The bench also referred to the Karnataka High Court’s controversial ruling on hijab bans in schools and colleges, where it was determined that a dress code promoting uniformity was in line with secular values and did not infringe upon the rights of students. The Court emphasised that educational institutions have the right to regulate dress codes to maintain discipline, and this was consistent with the right of educational institutions to manage and administer their affairs.
The decision raises significant concerns about the balance between individual rights and institutional regulations. By upholding the college’s dress code, the Court dismissed the students’ claim to freely practice their religion while pursuing education, positioning the institution’s uniformity and discipline as higher priorities. This ruling could set a concerning precedent for further limitations on religious freedoms in educational spaces, particularly for Muslim women seeking to express their religious identity through clothing. The judgment also appears to prioritise administrative control over the rights of individuals, disregarding the diversity and inclusivity that should ideally be promoted in educational institutions.
6. July 2024
Supreme Court refuses to cancel NEET-UG 2024 exam despite paper leak allegations
On July 23, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions seeking the cancellation of the NEET-UG 2024 exam, despite allegations of a paper leak and malpractices. The Court acknowledged reports of a paper leak at exam centres in Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) and Patna (Bihar) but found no material evidence to suggest that the leak was systemic or that it affected the sanctity of the entire examination. The Court emphasised that there was insufficient evidence on record to conclude that the entire exam had been compromised or that the results were invalid.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, noted the potential consequences of ordering a re-examination. It stressed that such a decision would disrupt the academic schedule of over 23 lakh students and create a cascading effect on future academic years. The Court concluded that the material presented did not meet the legal tests required to cancel the exam or order a re-examination, upholding the validity of the results declared on June 4, 2024.
The decision to dismiss the petition, while grounded in procedural considerations, fails to address the broader issue of transparency and fairness in the exam process. By downplaying the significance of the paper leak, the Court missed an opportunity to reinforce the importance of upholding integrity in high-stakes examinations. This judgment potentially sets a precedent that may discourage thorough investigations into malpractice, as the Court focused more on the practical consequences of a re-examination than on ensuring the credibility of the examination system.
7. August 2024
Supreme Court dismisses petitions for SIT Probe into electoral bonds donations and quid pro quo arrangements
On August 2, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions seeking the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate alleged quid pro quo arrangements between corporate entities and political parties through donations made via electoral bonds. The Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, deemed the request “premature” and inappropriate, emphasising that criminal law procedures and statutory remedies had not been exhausted. It concluded that invoking a judicial probe without utilising these established mechanisms would be unwarranted at this stage.
The petitioners also sought directions to recover donations made through electoral bonds and to reopen the income tax assessments of political parties. However, the Court declined these requests, noting that such actions fall under the statutory functions of the Income Tax authorities. The bench observed that issuing these directions would require a conclusive determination of disputed facts, which was beyond the scope of the present proceedings. It further stated that the petitions were based on assumptions and lacked substantive evidence to warrant intervention.
This dismissal is troubling as it bypasses an opportunity to ensure accountability and transparency in the electoral funding process. By rejecting the petitions on procedural grounds without probing the deeper implications of opaque donations, the Court inadvertently upholds a system that enables potential misuse of electoral bonds for undisclosed financial transactions. This stance could erode public trust in the integrity of political financing and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democratic principles.
Supreme Court refuses to cancel bail of journalist Gauri Lankesh murder accused Mohan Nayak
On August 21, the Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition filed by Kavitha Lankesh, the sister of slain journalist Gauri Lankesh, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the accused Mohan Nayak N by the Karnataka High Court. Nayak, accused number 11 in the case, was arrested in July 2018 and had been in custody for five years before being granted bail by the High Court in December 2023.
The bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma considered that Nayak had cooperated with the trial proceedings and had not sought any adjournments. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the State of Karnataka, informed the Court that of the 527 charge sheeted witnesses, 137 had been examined, and 137 dropped, and approximately 150 more were expected to be dropped, leaving only 100 witnesses to be examined. Based on these facts, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasising that the State or the complainant could seek bail cancellation if Nayak violated any conditions or delayed the trial.
The Court also directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, urging all parties to cooperate in ensuring the trial’s timely completion. While the decision reflects the judiciary’s balance between individual rights and trial efficiency, it underscores the delays in high-profile cases. This dismissal may raise concerns about justice delivery in a case involving the silencing of a prominent journalist and activist, which continues to hold significant public and political resonance.
Allahabad High Court denies bail to Maulana under Anti-Conversion law
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to Maulana Mohd Shane Alam under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal ruled that Alam, who officiated a nikaah without notifying the district magistrate, fell under the law’s definition of a “religious converter” and was therefore culpable. The court cited procedural non-compliance as sufficient grounds for liability, even though Alam’s role was limited to signing the nikaahnama.
The judgment featured contentious language, using terms like “religion converter” that carry connotations of stigma and bias. It also generalised concerns over forced conversions, framing them as threats to secularism, despite limited evidence in the case. This interpretation emphasised strict procedural compliance over proving actual coercion, raising concerns about the law’s disproportionate impact on religious minorities and interfaith practices.
By deploying a sweeping narrative of alleged conversion threats, the ruling risks legitimising the misuse of anti-conversion laws. Its language and reasoning reinforce societal divisions and undermine the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. Such judicial approaches highlight the urgent need for impartial interpretations that preserve individual rights and prevent systemic bias.
8. November 2024
Rajasthan High Court judgment narrowing SC/ST Act’s scope
In a controversial ruling, the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court discharged four individuals accused of caste-based slurs under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Delivered by Justice Birendra Kumar on November 12, 2024, the judgment concluded that terms like “Bhangi,” “Neech,” “Bhikhari,” and “Mangani” were not caste-specific and lacked evidence of the accused knowing the complainants’ caste. The court also ruled that the altercation stemmed from a land measurement dispute rather than caste-based animosity.
The incident occurred in 2011 when public officials, including the complainants, were allegedly obstructed and insulted during an anti-encroachment operation. Despite the initial negative police report, charges were framed after a Protest Petition. While allowing prosecution under the Indian Penal Code for obstruction and assault, the court held that essential elements of the SC/ST Act—intent to humiliate based on caste and occurrence in public view—were not met. Justice Kumar leaned on precedents like Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh to underscore that public witnesses and explicit caste references are crucial for sustaining such charges.
This judgment raises concerns about the Act’s protective reach. By interpreting slurs like “Bhangi” as non-caste-specific and requiring knowledge of caste identity, the ruling risks setting a precedent that could weaken the SC/ST Act. It can be argued that this could embolden discriminatory behaviours under the guise of ignorance or misclassification, undermining efforts to address systemic caste-based discrimination.
Erosion of accountability and justice
In conclusion, the judgments, orders, and dismissals outlined above reflect a disturbing trend in the Supreme Court’s approach to key issues that directly affect the rights and freedoms of individuals and the integrity of India’s democratic processes. From limiting transparency in political funding and dismissing calls for greater scrutiny of corporate malpractices to narrowing the scope of laws meant to protect marginalised communities, these decisions have the potential to erode public trust in the judiciary. They set a dangerous precedent where judicial protection of fundamental rights seems contingent on convenience or legal technicalities rather than a robust commitment to justice and fairness.
The Court’s reluctance to address pressing concerns in these cases suggests a diminishing willingness to challenge powerful interests or confront systemic injustices. By failing to fully safeguard rights and hold powerful entities accountable, these rulings weaken the very foundation of justice and fairness upon which the rule of law stands. As citizens, it is crucial to recognise the implications of these decisions and call for greater judicial accountability and vigilance, ensuring that the courts remain true to their role as defenders of justice and protectors of the Constitution.
Related:
The judiciary’s commitment to protecting rights: notable Supreme Court judgments of 2024