Author Avatar

JURISEDGE

August 18, 2024
0

Share post:

The years 2020 to 2024 have been pivotal for constitutional law in India, marked by a series of landmark judgments that have redefined and reinforced the core principles of the Constitution. As Jurisedge embarks on this Landmark Judgment Series, we begin by delving into the most pivotal Constitutional Law decisions during this time. These rulings have addressed critical questions of fundamental rights, the balance of power between the state and citizens, and the intricate relationship between law and governance. Through this series, we aim to provide a brief analysis of the judgments that have not only set legal precedents but also influenced the socio-political fabric of the nation.

Here are the judgments on constitutional law:

Name of the Case Held
Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/S Steel Authority of India, 2024 INSC 607 In an 8:1 majority, a nine-judge Constitution Bench ruled that the legislative power to tax mineral rights vests with the State Legislatures under Entry 50, List II. And Parliament does not have legislative competence to tax mineral rights under Entry 54, List I. Justice BV Nagarathna gave a dissenting opinion and held that Section 2 of the MMDR Act, 1957 made in terms of Entry 54, List I, the State Legislature is denuded of its powers under Enry 50, List II
In re: Article 370 of the Constitution, 2023 INSC 1058 The Constitution Bench has held that State of Jammu and Kashmir does not retain any element of sovereignty after the execution of the IoA. The power under Article 370(3) did not cease to exist upon the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. When the Constituent Assembly was dissolved, only the transitional power recognised in the proviso to Article 370(3) which empowered the Constituent Assembly to make its recommendations ceased to exist. It did not affect the power held by the President under Article 370(3).
Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 INSC 548 The Constitution Bench has upheld the practice of Jallikattu as per the 2017 Tamil Nadu Amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Subhas Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 INSC 516 The correctness of the decision in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker is referred to a larger Bench of seven judges. The effect of the deletion of Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule is that the defence of ‘split’ is no longer available to members facing disqualification proceedings. The Speaker would prima facie determine who the political party is for the purpose of adjudicating disqualification petitions under Paragraph 2(1) of the Tenth Schedule, where two or more factions claim to be that political party.
Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 INSC 4  Art 19/21 can be enforced even against persons other than the State or its instrumentalities, Justice BV Nagarathna wrote the dissenting opinion and held that the State is capable of interfering with the common law rights and natural rights of citizens. Even if the Fundamental rights may overlap with the common law rights, the violation of common law rights shall lie under common law and not under the Constitution.
Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India, 2023 INSC 2 The Constitution Bench, in a 4:1 split, upheld the Union’s 2016 demonetisation scheme. The majority held that the Union can demonetise ‘all’ currency notes of a denomination through a notification under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act. Justice BV Nagarathna gave a dissenting opinion and held that the Union cannot demonetise all notes under Section 26(2) of the RBI Act. The Union can only do so through legislation or an Ordinance.
Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka, 2022 INSC 1085 A two-judge bench has delivered a split verdict (Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ) regarding the ban on wearing Hijab at educational institution. Justice Hemant Gupta held that Government Order cannot be said to be contrary to the legitimate State goal of promoting literacy and education, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia held that the ban is an invasion on privacy and attack on dignity, and then ultimately it is a denial to secular education. These are clearly violative of Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 25(1) of the Constitution of India.
Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association, (2020) 9 SCC 121 A nine-judge Constitution Bench has held that the Supreme Court has the power to refer a point in law to a larger bench in a review petition. The Court held that there are no limitations on the Supreme Court in reviewing judgments in writ proceedings.

You can access Jurisedge Recent Legal News Archives and our Jurisedge Blog for legal updates from around the globe.

For daily legal updates, follow our official Jurisedge channel on Instagram and LinkedIn and join our Telegram channel

Subscribe to our Law Exams Capsule India’s One and only Comprehensive Law Exam Preparation Journal

Readers may submit his/her blog for publication. Click Here to submit your Manuscript.

Celebrating 8 Years of Jurisedge: Upcoming Series on Landmark Judgments
Judgments Series 2020-2024: Administrative Law
by Jurisedge Academy
comments 0 date August 30, 2024

Round-Up: Judgment Series 2020-2024

Welcome to our comprehensive roundup of the Judgment Series for 2020-2024! In this series, we’ve explored the evolving landscape of Indian jurisprudence through detailed reviews and interpretations of landmark cases. read more…

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *