In 1980, a majority of four out of five judges upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab. The sole dissenter was Justice P.N. Bhagwati, who noted the inherent arbitrariness and inhumanity of the death penalty in a detailed opinion.

In the latest article as part of our special series commemorating 75 years of the Court, Shreya Rastogi and Neetika Vishwanath from Project 39A highlight the advances in empirical research on capital punishment since the decision in Bachan Singh. They argue that the reality today proves many of Justice Bhagwati's concerns to be true.

Read it here: https://www.scobserver.in/75-years-of-sc/how-justice-bhagwatis-44-year-old-dissent-mirrors-the-state-of-death-penalty-in-india/

Author Salil Tripathi’s essay in our special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court of India talks about how the courts have approached book bans.

Ostensibly, these bans are in favour of public interest, but more often, they serve the interests of powerful groups—political parties, ruling governments, multinational corporations.

Salil writes that when cases make it to the Supreme Court, it has often upheld the author's freedom of expression. However, the real theatre of the book ban in India is often the bureaucratic office, the city street and the village square.

Read Salil's article now on SCObserver.in!

Have you read the previous stories we’ve put out as part of our SC@75 series? You’ll find in the set a compelling mix of history, pop culture and legal analysis.

Today, the Supreme Court hosts 34 judges. These judges have a vast library of precedents to rely on and time-honed processes to ensure smooth functioning. But during its formative years, the Court had just eight judges.

Six judges were present in the Court’s inaugural session on 28 January 1950: Chief Justice Harilal Kania, and Justices S. Fazl Ali, Patanjali Shastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea, and S.R. Das. Justice N.C. Aiyar was appointed in September 1950. A year later, Justice Vivian Bose came on board to complete the original roster of eight.

As part of SCO’s special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court, associate editor R. Sai Spandana, has written a potted history of the first eight judges of the top court.

Read the essay now on scobserver.in.

As a part of our special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court we look at one of the Supreme Court’s earliest landmark decisions.

Arudra Burra's article, first published in Seminar magazine, was a refreshing look at Romesh Thapar v State of Madras, 1950.

By undertaking a deep study of the consequences of a judgement that was hailed for upholding the freedom of speech, Burra cautioned us about “constitutional progressivism” obscuring the real-world implications of the Court’s pronouncements.

Read now!

On 10 November, former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud retired after a 8 year long tenure at the Supreme Court. During this time, he authored over 600 judgements and was a part of over 1200 benches. He has authored majority and concurring opinions in several landmark cases, including in a matter that recognised the right to privacy and one that decriminalised homosexuality. In this video, we curate a list of notable opinions wherein Justice Chandrachud has either arrived at some or all conclusions contradicting the majority, or arrived at the same conclusion as the majority but adopted different reasoning to get there.

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.