Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [January 19-25, 2026]

1. [Bikram Majithia] The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia's plea for interim bail in the a corruption case against him relating to alleged disproportionate assets. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta agreed to consider Majithia's case after Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal pressed for interim bail. "We will hear on February 2, 2026. We will consider the prayer for interim bail on that date", the bench ordered.
Click here to read more

2. [Operation Sindoor] The Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh government to take a decision within two weeks on granting sanction for prosecution in connection with an FIR registered against BJP leader Vijay Shah over his remarks referring to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as a “sister of terrorists”. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions filed by Shah challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s suo motu order directing registration of an FIR against him.
Click here to read more

3. [Liquor Shops] The Supreme Court has stayed the Rajasthan High Court's order directing the removal or relocation of all liquor shops situated within 500 metres of National and State Highways, including 1102 shops, irrespective of municipal or local body location. High Court in November 2025 had further directed the State Government to ensure that no hoardings, signages or advertisements relating to the availability of liquor/liquor shops are visible from the National or State Highways, even while relocating the shops beyond the mandatory distance of 500 metres, in strict and uncompromising adherence to the directions issued by the Supreme Court.
Click here to read more

4. [West Bengal SIR] The Supreme Court issued a set of directions aimed at ensuring transparency and fairness in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, after hearing a batch of petitions alleging large-scale inconvenience and arbitrariness in the verification process. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Dipankar Datta and Joymalya Bagchi heard detailed submissions from Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Shyam Divan for the petitioners, and Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi for the Election Commission of India (ECI).
Click here to read more

5. [Asim Shaikh] The Supreme Court refused a petition filed by one Asim Shaikh seeking recalling of "false and frivolous" cases registered against him under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime (GUJCTOC) Act. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta asked Sheikh to approach the High Court for relief. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Click here to read more

6. [Punjab Kesari] The Supreme Court directed the State of Punjab not to take any coercive steps against the publication of the Punjab Kesari newspaper, ordering that its printing press be allowed to function uninterruptedly while the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment on the dispute is awaited. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the interim order after an urgent oral mention by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the newspaper management.
Click here to read more

7. [Private School fees] The Supreme Court observed that it was in favour of the he Delhi School Education (Transparency in Fixation and Regulation of Fees) Act, 2025, introduced by the Delhi government. Noting that the fees charged by private schools was very high, a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said, "We are completely in favour of the legislation… this is not the final word or anything, but what we are saying is, in a hurry you may end up not properly constituting the committees..".
Click here to read more

8. [Hate Speech] The Supreme Court heard a batch of public interest litigations seeking strict action against hate speeches and hate crimes across the country, including pleas alleging non-compliance with the Court’s earlier directions to States and Union Territories to suo motu register FIRs without waiting for formal complaints. The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted submissions pointing to continued reluctance by law enforcement agencies to act against hate speech. The Court granted two weeks’ time to parties to file brief notes with clarifications, suggestions and arguments, and closed all matters except one pending case from Uttar Pradesh.
Click here to read more

9. [Article 226] The Supreme Court agreed to examine whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can invoke the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce its rights as a “juristic person”. The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice on appeals filed by the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments, which have challenged a Kerala High Court ruling that recognised the ED’s locus standi to file writ petitions under Article 226.
Click here to read more

10. [Stray Dogs Case] The Supreme Court strongly criticised former Union minister Maneka Gandhi for her public remarks questioning the Apex Court’s orders on the stray dog issue, observing that her statements amounted to contempt of court. The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria expressed clear displeasure over Gandhi’s comments made in public forums, including a podcast, where she criticised the judiciary’s approach to stray dog regulation.
Click here to read more

11. [Savukku Shankar] The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed by YouTuber Savukku Shankar seeking directions to unseal his office in Chennai and for the return of devices seized in connection with allegations of assault and extortion levelled by a film producer. The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the petition, observing that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for every grievance, and directed Shankar to pursue his remedies before the jurisdictional judicial magistrate.
Click here to read more

12. [Ambience Island] In a significant development in the long-running legal dispute concerning the Ambience Island project in Gurugram, the Supreme Court set aside a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had called for a Central Bureau of Investigation led probe. A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta of set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and brought closure to the issues raised regarding the legality of the project.
Click here to read more

13. [Surendra Gadling] The Supreme Court heard a plea by human rights lawyer Surendra Gadling seeking bail in the 2016 Surajgarh arson case, with the Bench flagging concerns over delays in the trial and indicating steps to expedite proceedings. The Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi took up the matter and discussed measures to ensure that the stalled trial moves forward without further procedural bottlenecks.
Click here to read more

14. [Young Couples] The Supreme Court citing irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where the parties stayed together only for 65 days, were separated for the last decade and had been indulging into litigation one after another, exercised its discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage between the parties. In view of the fact that the parties stayed together only for a period of 65 days and had indulged in numerous litigations for the last more than a decade apparently with a view to settle scores, the bench observed that both of them deserve to be penalised with costs, quantified at ₹10,000/- each, as a token amount, which has been directed to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association.
Click here to read more

15. [Delays in NIA Trials] The Supreme Court heard a challenge to a Delhi High Court order denying bail to an alleged member of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), accused by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) of radicalising youths through cyberspace. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi took up the matter, which arose from an NIA case alleging online radicalisation and recruitment activities.
Click here to read more

16. [Aravalli Case] The Supreme Court continued its interim order on the revised definition of the Aravalli Hills and indicated that it would constitute a court-supervised expert body to examine all aspects of the issue, amid concerns that changes in the definition were being misused to permit illegal mining. The Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant recorded the appearances of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati for the Union, Senior Advocate K.M. Nataraj for the State of Rajasthan, and amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Parameshwar, who appeared along with the Member Secretary of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).
Click here to read more

17. [Delhi Air Pollution] The Supreme Court took up the worsening air pollution crisis in Delhi-NCR, signalling a decisive shift from debate to execution by directing authorities to focus on implementing long-term measures without delay. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi heard submissions on a comprehensive report filed by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), which outlines structural and sector-specific interventions to address persistent air pollution in the National Capital Region.
Click here to read more

18. [Red Fort Attack] The Supreme Court agreed to hear a curative plea filed by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist Mohammad Arif alias Ashfaq, challenging the dismissal of his earlier plea seeking review of the death sentence awarded to him in the 2000 Red Fort terror attack case that claimed the lives of three Army jawans. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Vikram Nath and J.K. Maheshwari issued notice in the matter after brief submissions were made on behalf of the convict.
Click here to read more

19. [Media Briefing Policy] The Supreme Court recently directed the States to evolve an appropriate policy for Media Briefing by taking into consideration the Police Manual for Media Briefing furnished by the Amicus Curiae before it. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh has directed that the needful will have to be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Court took on record the laborious exercise undertaken by Senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who had been appointed as the Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
Click here to read more

20. [National Stampede SOPs] The Supreme Court heard a writ petition seeking nationwide directions to prevent stampedes at political rallies and large public gatherings, but declined to frame mandatory guidelines, holding that crowd management policies fall within the domain of executive authorities and experts. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi examined the plea, which highlighted what the petitioner described as “preventable deaths” occurring due to stampedes across India.
Click here to read more

21. [BCCI-team India] The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging a Delhi High Court verdict that had rejected a petition seeking to restrain Prasar Bharati from referring to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) team as the “Indian National Cricket Team” or “Team India” on Doordarshan and All India Radio (AIR). The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi came down heavily on the petitioner for filing what it termed a frivolous and unnecessary petition, observing that such cases only add to the burden on constitutional courts.
Click here to read more

22. [Basant Panchami] The Supreme Court heard a plea concerning the disputed Bhojshala Temple-cum-Kamal Maula Mosque in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, and issued directions to ensure peaceful observance of religious activities on the occasion of Basant Panchami. The Bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi, emphasised the need for mutual respect and cooperation between the communities and the administration.
Click here to read more

23. [Airfare Surge] The Supreme Court granted four weeks to the Union of India, Directorate General of Civil Aviation and Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India to file its counter affidavit in the petition filed by social activist and frequent air traveller, S. Laxminarayanan seeking urgent judicial intervention to curb what he described as “unchecked, opaque and exploitative” airfare practices by private airlines in India. When the case was taken up, Justice Mehta told ASG Anil Kaushik, who was before court, that the Supreme Court was going to interfere in the issue. "You exploited a lot of people during Kumbh Mela..just look at the airfare between Jodhpur and Prayagraj for that time period and you will know..", Justice Mehta said.
Click here to read more

24. [West Bengal VC Appointments] The Supreme Court recently resolved a long-standing impasse over the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in state-run universities in West Bengal, clearing the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in eight universities while referring the remaining three posts back to the Search-cum-Selection Committee headed by former Chief Justice of India Justice Uday U. Lalit. The matter related to the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in 36 state universities in West Bengal, which had remained stalled due to differences between the State government and the Chancellor. With the Court’s intervention and phased resolution through the Justice Lalit-led committee, appointments have already been settled in most universities. As of now, only 11 universities were without permanent Vice-Chancellors.
Click here to read more

25. [Death Penalty] The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on a plea seeking painless procedure for death convicts other than hanging. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta has reserved their judgment after hearing Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora (for Project 39A) and Advocate Rishi Malhotra, who is the petitioner. Advocate Rishi Malhotra, the petitioner had argued before the bench that death by dignity is a fundamental right. "When a man is hanged, his dignity is lost. A convict whose life has to end, he should not have to suffer the pain of hanging", Malhotra had further told the bench. While taking court through the process of hanging, the petitioner advocate had submitted that the body of a condemner should be left hanging till the medical practitioner says that life is extinct.
Click here to read more

26. [Deepam Row] Emphasising that the Thiruparankundram Deepam is not a symbolic or event-based observance but a living civilisational practice rooted in centuries of Murugan worship, a writ petition filed by the Hindu Dharma Parishad before the Supreme Court has sought permanent lighting of the ancient stone lamp atop the Thiruparankundram hill in Tamil Nadu, arguing that restricting the ritual to a single day undermines its historical, cultural and religious continuity. The Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi took up the matter, which arises from an ongoing dispute over the lighting of a lamp near a dargah situated on the hill, adjacent to the Thiruparankundram Murugan (Subramaniya Swamy) Temple, one of the six revered abodes of Lord Murugan. The Court issued notice on a writ petition.
Click here to read more

27. [Contempt Case] The Supreme Court disposed of a plea challenging the suo motu criminal contempt proceedings initiated by the Jharkhand High Court against a practising lawyer, Advocate Mahesh Tiwari who was seen in a viral video clip engaging in a heated exchange with a single judge during court proceedings. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the matter involved questions of conduct and remorse, and held that the appropriate course would be for the lawyer to place his apology before the High Court itself. “If he feels he has done nothing wrong, then he should have the courage to go and contest. But if he thinks he was wrong, he should go and apologise,” the CJI remarked during the hearing.
Click here to read more