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.

In the late 1970s, the Supreme Court introduced the innovation of Public interest litigation. The idea was to improve the access of marginalised individuals and groups to the higher courts through proceedings brought by unaffected parties.

How has this promise and purpose played out since then? As part of our special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court, Advocate Gulnar A. Mistry traces the changing understanding of locus standi through the utterances and decisions of the Court in PIL matters. The result, she argues, is a haphazard jurisprudence that creates uncertainty in the mind of a bona fide seeker of public-oriented justice.

Read now!

Last week, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act in a 4:1 majority. There were three opinions and multiple issues to consider.

While the majority and the concurring opinions upheld the constitutional validity, J.B. Pardiwala in his dissent provided strong reasons to strike it down.

We bring you the key highlights of the decision.

In star-led commercial films, the courtroom has traditionally been presented as the hallowed ground that the wronged enter with innocent optimism. However, the Marathi-language film 'Court', has shed this dramatic trapping, choosing instead to focus on the not-so-rosy realities of the judicial system.

In her essay as part of our special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court, film critic Anna Vetticad argues that the portrayal of the judiciary extends beyond entertainment—it serves as a mirror reflecting societal attitudes toward justice.

Recently, the Supreme Court invoked its discretionary powers under Article 142 to grant Atul Kumar, a Dalit student, admission to the Indian Institute of Technology in Dhanbad.

Article 142 is a unique provision that grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any necessary order to secure ‘complete justice’. We explore the many facets of this provision and how it has evolved over the years.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court started live streaming Constitution Bench hearings on YouTube for the first time. Recently, as the Court has started livestreaming select Division Bench cases, the lines between public interest and institutional posturing have become somewhat blurrier and concerns about performative justice remain relevant.