Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [April 27-May 3, 2026]

1. [Digital Arrest Scams] The Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C), functioning under the Ministry of Home Affairs, has filed a detailed status report before the Supreme Court outlining sweeping regulatory and enforcement measures being taken to tackle “digital arrest” scams and cyber-enabled financial frauds. The report by Attorney General R. Venkataramani placed in continuation of earlier compliance filings, records the outcome of the 3rd Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) meeting held on 12 March 2026 and the coordinated action taken by key stakeholders including the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), MeitY, RBI, WhatsApp, and law enforcement agencies.
Click here to read more

2. [CCTV in Police Stations] The Supreme Court directed that a meeting be convened on May 6 to examine the utilisation of funds allocated for installation of CCTV cameras in police stations across the country. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta asked Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, assisting the Court as amicus curiae in the suo motu case concerning non-functional CCTVs in police stations, to convene the meeting with representatives of the Centre, all States and Union Territories.
Click here to read more

3. [Brain Death Tests] The Supreme Court directed the constitution of an expert medical committee by All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to examine and report on scientific methods for determining “brain death,” amid concerns raised over the reliability and transparency of existing procedures. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Kerala-based doctor, appearing in person Dr. S. Ganapathy, who questioned the current protocol followed by hospitals in certifying brain death.
Click here to read more

4. [Hate Speech] The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of petitions seeking directions on hate speech, holding that there is no legislative vacuum and that the issue lies in enforcement of existing laws rather than absence of statutory provisions. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, while pronouncing judgment, emphasised that the creation of criminal offences falls squarely within the domain of the legislature and courts cannot assume that role.
Click here to read more

5. [Teesta Setalvad] The Supreme Court of India disposed of a miscellaneous application filed by Teesta Setalvad seeking release of her passport, observing that no order was required at this stage in the absence of a concrete travel plan. The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta, Satish Chandra Sharma and Alok Aradhe made it clear that the Court would consider the request when a specific itinerary for foreign travel is placed on record. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Setalvad, submitted that she would in any case require the Court’s permission to travel abroad and also flagged that the passport would need renewal within a year.
Click here to read more

6. [Sabarimala] The Supreme Court questioned a woman who visited the Sabarimala Temple post the court's 2018 verdict which had set aside the traditional ban on women aged 10–50 years to enter the Sabarimala Temple. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising told the 9-judge bench hearing the review petitions that the women she was representing, named Bindu, had entered the Sabarimala Temple when she was about 40 years old. "They did a Shuddhi. She must have been about 40 years of age when she went. The chief did a Shuddhi. I had filed a petition in this Court, and there is an order giving police protection. But she never went again. That was the end of the story. She did not have the courage to go a second time."
Click here to read more

7. [Termination of 15 yrs old pregnancy] The Supreme Court refused a curative plea filed by AIIMS against court's decision from April 24 permitting a 15-year-old Delhi girl to terminate her over 28-week pregnancy. Noting that doctors cannot decide on behalf of their patients, the bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to talk to the parents of the minor girl and try to persuade them if they wish to reconsider. "You do not have to come back to us..let the parents decide..let's not make medical personnels become the masters of the will of the people..DOCTORS CANNOT DECIDE FOR THEIR PATIENTS..", Justice Bagchi told ASG Bhati.
Click here to read more

8. [Judicial Cadre for Land Disputes] The Supreme Court has issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking the creation of a separate Revenue Judicial Service Cadre for adjudication of land disputes across the country. A bench of CJI Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the PIL returnable in four weeks. "See the problem is this is under legislative domain..," CJI further remarked. Explaining the issue before court, Upadhyay said, "Every district I visit, this is a common problem..I try to visit two-three districts every week..In Jaunpur, there is a dispute pending for last 41 years..not decided by Chakbandi Adhikari..it involves a two gift deeds, one party is poor, other has political connections..Adhikari knows if he decides he will be transferred..". The petition filed through AoR Ashwini Kumar Dubey raises concerns over the existing system where revenue and consolidation officers, often lacking formal legal education and judicial training, decide complex questions relating to property rights.
Click here to read more

9. [ADAG Probe] Before a CJI Surya Kant led bench of the Supreme Court ED and EBI filed their status reports on their respective probe into banking frauds, allegedly involving Reliance Communications Ltd., its group companies and promoter Anil Ambani. The bench directed listing on the matter after a week on May 8, 2026. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, told the bench, "Anil Ambani, who has been identified as the kingpin has not been arrested till now.." In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, "I cannot respond on why X or Y has not been arrested.."
Click here to read more

10. [Acharya at the Kashi Vishwanath Temple] The Supreme Court has stayed the operation of a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court that had set aside a Single Judge’s ruling in favour of noted Sanskrit scholar Dr. Devi Prasad Dwivedi, allowing him to continue as Acharya at the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. The Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar issued notice in a Special Leave Petition filed by Dwivedi and directed that the Single Judge’s September 24, 2025 order would remain operational for now. The effect of the interim order is that Dwivedi will continue to perform the temple’s night Shringar Aarti and impart ritual training to priests, as he has historically done. Dwivedi, a distinguished scholar and recipient of the Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan, had approached the apex court challenging the Division Bench ruling dated April 13, 2026. The High Court had revived the writ petition and remanded the matter, effectively reopening a dispute that had been settled by the Single Judge after prolonged litigation spanning nearly 25 years.
Click here to read more

11. [Contempt of Court] The Supreme Court of India has issued contempt notice on a petition filed by the Bar Council of India against Dhanya Kumar Jain, President, Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association over his criminal complaint addressed to police authorities making derogatory and contemptuous allegations. As per BCI, Jain's allegations fall not only under professional misconduct but also invite action under Contempt of Court Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India and the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. Allegedly Jain had written a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur levelling false allegations against BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra and the High Powered Election Committee headed by retired Supreme Court judge-Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Click here to read more

12. [Pawan Khera] While granting anticipatory bail to Congress leader Pawan Khera in a case arising out of allegations that he displayed forged documents during press conferences targeting the wife of Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma, the Supreme Court has noted in its order that the statements have been made merely to gain some political momentum in favour of his party. The top court's bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar noted the case of the prosecution was that upon investigation it found that the passports purported to be belonging to the complainant wife of the Assam CM were fake and had been displayed by Khera to defame the wife of the Chief Minister, intentionally causing harm to their reputation and for this purpose, the press conference was organized.
Click here to read more

13. [West Bengal Assembly Elections 2026] The Supreme Court dismissed the Trinamool Congress's plea challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI) decision to allegedly appoint only Central government employees and PSU staff as counting day supervisors for West Bengal Assembly Elections, 2026. A special bench was formed to take up the issue urgently on Saturday for hearing. Since the next working day of the Supreme Court is Monday, which is the counting day in West Bengal, the TMC had sought an urgent hearing on Saturday. Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard submissions from Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for TMC and Senior Advocate DS Naidu, appearing for ECI. "No further orders are required. We record the submissions of Mr. Naidu that the ECI circular will be followed in letter and spirit," Justice Narasimha recorded in the order while dismissing the petition.
Click here to read more