Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [June 15-21, 2026]

1. [Punjab and Haryana HC recusal] The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over repeated recusals by judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case concerning a former judicial officer's challenge to his dismissal from service, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarking that "three or four so-called senior advocates" in the State were "creating havoc." The Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a transfer petition filed by the former judicial officer, who sought transfer of his case after several benches of the Punjab and Haryana High Court recused from hearing his plea against dismissal from service. At This Stage Appearing in person, the petitioner informed the Court that four benches had recused from hearing the matter. "I would like to know who are the judges. So then I am going to make an inquiry that what kind of activities you are indulging in," the CJI observed. The petitioner submitted that Justice Lisa Gill first recused from the matter. He further stated that the then Chief Justice recused after reserving the matter, and that Justices Ashwini Kumar Mishra and Dipak Sibal subsequently also recused from hearing the case. He added that his applications seeking release of pension and General Provident Fund (GPF) dues had not been considered.

Case Title: Amrish Kumar Jain v. State of Punjab

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana

Click here to read more 

2. [1993 Bowbazar blast] The Supreme Court has agreed to urgently hear a plea filed by the State of West Bengal challenging a Delhi High Court judgment directing the premature release of Md Rashid Khan, a life convict in the 1993 Kolkata (Bowbazar) blast case who has spent over 33 years in prison. The matter was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana. Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the State Sentence Review Board (SSRB) had recommended against Khan's release and sought urgent listing of the appeal against the Delhi High Court's order. At This Stage Accepting the request, the Bench agreed to list the matter for hearing on Monday, i.e. June 22. The challenge arises from a June 5 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which ordered the immediate release of the 77-year-old convict, holding that continued incarceration of a demonstrably reformed prisoner after over three decades served no useful purpose and that the reformative approach to punishment must prevail over retribution.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana

Click here to read more

3. [Three-Language Framework For Class IX Students] The Supreme Court has declined to grant interim protection in a plea challenging the implementation of the Central Board of Secondary Education's (CBSE) revised three-language framework (R1-R2-R3) for students entering Class IX from the Academic Session 2026-27. The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana heard the petition filed by the trust, Friend of People for Active Democracy, which questioned the manner in which the revised language framework was being implemented. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner clarified that the challenge was not directed against the three-language policy itself. "We are not challenging the three-language policy, just implementation of it," the counsel submitted. During the hearing, the Chief Justice took note of the petitioner's name and made a light-hearted remark. Questioning the nomenclature, CJI Surya Kant asked, "Friends Of People For Active Democracy. This kind of nomenclature is to create fear in the mind of the Court or the people?"

Case Title: Friends of People for Active Democracy v. Union of India

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana

Click here to read more

4. [National Digital Registry] The Supreme Court has termed as a "very innovative idea" a proposal seeking the creation of a National Digital Registry for the legal profession, including a Unique National Advocate Identifier, real-time enrolment verification, disciplinary records and QR-verifiable public profiles for advocates. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a public interest petition filed by the Bar Association of India (BAI), which also sought a social media code of conduct for advocates, including regulation of online solicitation and misleading promotional practices. At This Stage Appearing for the BAI, Advocate Vipin Nair, along with BAI President Prashant Kumar, submitted that the petition addressed two structural concerns confronting the legal profession: the absence of a reliable, nationally verifiable database of advocates and the growing regulatory vacuum concerning lawyers' conduct on social media platforms. At the outset, the Chief Justice observed that the proposal merited serious consideration.

Case Title: The Bar Association of India & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana

Click here to read more

5. [Tamil Nadu Trust Vote] The Supreme Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking a CBI investigation into alleged horse-trading and corruption behind the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam's (TVK) victory in the trust vote held in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on May 13, 2026, holding that the plea was founded on "casual allegations" and lacked any credible supporting material. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana declined to entertain the petition filed by Advocate C.R. Jaya Sukin, who had also sought the imposition of President's Rule in Tamil Nadu pending the completion of the investigation. During the hearing, the petitioner alleged rampant political horse-trading in the country, claiming that legislators were flown in chartered flights, large sums of money were distributed, and government contracts were promised in exchange for support. "We are not in a democratic country," the petitioner submitted, urging the Court to intervene "to save democracy in this country." The CJI asked, "Which party are you talking about?"

Case Title: K.K. Ramesh v. The Union of India

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana

Click here to read more

6. [Ladies Bar Room] The Supreme Court has issued notice on a public interest petition seeking separate ladies' bar rooms and other basic amenities for women advocates in courts across the country, while also taking up the larger issue of financial insecurity faced by young lawyers and proposing the creation of a structured assistance fund for them. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana described the issues raised in the petition as concerning "accessibility, inclusiveness and the long-term sustainability of women in the legal profession." The petition was filed by a group of women advocates practising before various courts across the country. During the hearing, the petitioner-counsel submitted that despite judicial directions requiring aspiring civil services candidates to have at least three years of court exposure, women lawyers continue to face systemic barriers in the profession. "There is absence of fixed stipend for newly enrolled advocates in the courts," counsel submitted.

Case Title: Sarika Tyagi v. Union of India

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana

Click here to read more

7. [NEET UG Re-Exam 2026] The Supreme Court has refused to urgently list pleas concerning the re-conduct of the NEET-UG 2026 examination scheduled for June 21, reiterating that all matters relating to the examination stand assigned to a Bench led by Justice P.S. Narasimha. The issue was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana. AoR Adeel Ahmed appearing in one of the matters sought urgent listing of petitions concerning the NEET re-examination. The Chief Justice, however, declined the request, observing, "All NEET matters will go before the Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha. No urgency." Another petition was mentioned on behalf of around 1,600 NEET aspirants, who expressed anxiety over circulating rumours and recent proceedings before the Delhi High Court concerning the examination. Counsel submitted that students were also facing difficulties in downloading admit cards and that reports of mismatched examination centres had further compounded confusion among candidates. Seeking tagging of the matter with other pending petitions, counsel argued that apprehensions regarding the examination process continued to persist among students.

Case Title: ABC and Ors v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana

Click here to read more

8. [Public Sector Bank Loans] The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over the manner in which public sector bank loans are assigned to Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs), observing that there is a "dire need" to examine the conduct of ARCs and the larger mechanism through which large loan liabilities are settled for a fraction of their value. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a petition seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the settlement of loans extended to JKM Infra Projects Ltd. by a consortium of seven banks led by State Bank of India. The petition filed through AoR Ashwani Kumar Dubey seeks directions to the Centre to constitute a Judicial Commission or an Expert Committee comprising officers of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe an alleged large-scale corporate and banking fraud facilitated through ARC transactions.

Case Title: Prateekash and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana

Click here to read more

9. [IM Operatives] The Supreme Court has sought the Delhi Police's response to bail pleas filed by two alleged operatives of the banned terrorist organisation Indian Mujahideen, who have spent more than 12 years in custody in connection with a terror conspiracy case linked to an alleged illegal arms and ammunition factory in Delhi. The Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi issued notice on the pleas filed by Mohd. Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar. The case pertains to an FIR registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell following the arrest of alleged Indian Mujahideen member Mohd. Quateel Siddiqui in November 2011. According to the prosecution, the investigation subsequently uncovered a larger conspiracy involving members of the banned outfit and led to arrests across multiple States. Ansari and Azhar were arrested in March 2014 after the arrest of Pakistani national Zia-ur-Rehman alias Waqas, who allegedly disclosed their names during interrogation. The prosecution alleges that the duo were part of the Rajasthan module of Indian Mujahideen and were involved in preparations for terrorist attacks.

Case Title: Mohd. Saquib Ansari v. State NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi

Click here to read more 

10. [RTE Act not implemented in Punjab] The Supreme Court has issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation alleging large-scale non-implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) in Punjab and sought further material from the petitioner to substantiate claims that private schools have failed to provide admissions to children belonging to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and disadvantaged groups. At This Stage The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana was hearing the plea which raises concerns over the alleged denial of fundamental rights through the non-implementation of the RTE Act. At the outset, the petitioner-in-person submitted that several schools in Punjab were not implementing the Act at all. However, the CJI referred to the State's response and observed: “No, the government has filed a counter saying such students have been admitted from EWS category in private schools.”

Case Title: K. S. Raju Legal Trust v. Union of India

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana

Click here to read more 

11. [Marathi Actor Abhijit Gade] The Supreme Court has granted interim protection from arrest to Marathi actor and scriptwriter Abhijit Arun Gade while issuing notice on his Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a Bombay High Court order that rejected his anticipatory bail plea in a case involving allegations of circulating intimate photographs and videos of a former partner. The Bench of Justices AG Masih and Vijay Bishnoi passed the order on June 11, directing that in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No. 21/2026 registered at Narhe Police Station, Pune, Gade shall be released on bail subject to conditions.  The case arises from allegations made by a 24-year-old aspiring actress who accused Gade of threatening to circulate her intimate photographs and videos following the breakdown of their relationship. The FIR invokes Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as well as Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. While issuing notice, the Supreme Court made the matter returnable on August 3, 2026. The Court also directed issuance of notice to the complainant and waived formal service upon the State of Maharashtra after its counsel accepted notice.

Case Title: Abhijit Arun Gade v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bench: Justices AG Masih and Vijay Bishnoi

Click here to read more

12. [PIL to restrict Aadhaar Use] The Supreme Court has issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to restrict the use of Aadhaar strictly as proof of identity, observing that the matter bears similarity to a case already pending before it. The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who appeared in person. The PIL filed through AoR Ashwini Kumar Dubey contends that Aadhaar is increasingly being used across multiple administrative and electoral processes in a manner that exceeds the limits prescribed under law. It argues that Section 9 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, along with notifications issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), makes it clear that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship, domicile, address or date of birth.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana

Click here to read more

13. [Urban Development around Airport] The Supreme Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to address rapid urban infrastructure growth around airports in the wake of the Air India Flight AI171 crash near Ahmedabad that claimed more than 260 lives, including resident doctors and medical students. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana declined to entertain the plea, observing that issues relating to aviation safety and urban planning fall within the domain of policymakers and experts. "We are not scientists. The policy makers are there for this," CJI Surya Kant remarked while dismissing the petition. The PIL had been filed in the aftermath of the June 12, 2025 crash involving Air India's Boeing 787 aircraft bearing registration VT-ANB. According to the petition, the aircraft, operating Flight AI171 from Ahmedabad to London's Gatwick Airport, crashed moments after take-off at approximately 0809 UTC.

Case Title: Shakil Sheikh v. Union of India

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana

Click here to read more

14. [Children With Disabilities In Rehabilitation Centres] The Supreme Court has issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging inhuman treatment of children with disabilities and highlighting serious regulatory failures in rehabilitation centres across the country. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana directed that the matter be listed on priority. "Issue notice. This issue needs consideration. This matter needs to be listed in priority," CJI Surya Kant said. During the hearing Advocates Amar Jain, Sarah and Amritesh Mishra appeared for the petitioner. The PIL has been filed by disability rights lawyer Rahul Bajaj along with Zaheer Abbas Jan. The petition seeks mandatory registration of all rehabilitation centres with the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) and a comprehensive regulatory framework governing mental health professionals and establishments catering to children with disabilities.

Case Title: Rahul Bajaj v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justcie V. Mohana

Click here to read more

15. [Plea Challenging Tax Exemption For Northeast SC/ST] The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking implementation of a "creamy layer" principle in the income tax exemption granted to Scheduled Tribes residing in the North Eastern Region, observing that the issue falls within the legislative domain and is best addressed by Parliament. The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana granted the petitioner, Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay liberty to approach the appropriate parliamentary committee and serve copies of the petition on the respondents.  The PIL, filed through AoR Ashwani Kumar Dubey under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 11 read with Schedule III, Serial No. 19 of the Income-tax Act, 2025. The provision, which re-enacts Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, grants income tax exemption to Scheduled Tribes residing in the North Eastern Region. Arguing the matter, Upadhyay contended that the socio-economic conditions that originally justified the exemption had substantially changed over the decades. He submitted that several beneficiaries today possess significant wealth and extensive commercial interests.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India

Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana

Click here to read more

16. [Rehabilitation For Odisha Woman & Visually Impaired Son] The Supreme Court had taken up the plight of Odisha resident Radhika Bhuye and her visually impaired son in its suo motu proceedings concerning dignity and social security for persons with disabilities living in extreme poverty, issuing a series of directions aimed at ensuring a life of dignity and rehabilitation for the family. The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana recorded submissions that dwelling units had already been allotted to other members of the family but clarified that its immediate concern was whether Radhika Bhuye herself was able to live with dignity. "We are concerned with whether a life with dignity can be ensured for Smt. Radhika Bhuye," the CJI observed. The Court directed that it be informed about the old-age pension and other social security benefits, if any, being extended to Radhika Bhuye. It also sought details of the welfare benefits currently being received by her visually impaired son. Furthermore, the Court directed the Member Secretary of the Odisha State Legal Services Authority (OSLSA) to personally interact with the mother and son and ensure that all necessary arrangements are made for their welfare.

Case Title: In Re: Ensuring basic human dignity and social security for differently abled citizens living in extreme poverty and other Ancillary issue

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana

Click here to read more

17. [Tripura Village Committee Elections] The Supreme Court has directed that elections to the Village Committees in Tripura be conducted in a single phase and made it clear that no further extension of the election process would be permitted. The Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order after considering an affidavit filed by the State Election Commission proposing two possible schedules for holding the polls. At the outset of the hearing, Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the Court that the Commission had placed before it "two ways of conducting elections." When the matter was taken up later in the day, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Election Commission had suggested two schedules for conducting the elections. Explaining the proposals, the Attorney General said one schedule had been prepared in line with the Court's earlier suggestion of staggered polling. However, he pointed to the practical difficulties posed by the State's geography and weather conditions. "One schedule is the schedule in terms of the Court's suggestion if there is a possibility of staggered polling. However, having regard to the heavy monsoon in Tripura, Your Lordships know the topography there…," the Attorney General submitted. He said the Commission had alternatively suggested that the entire election be held in a single phase instead of "working around the unscheduled terrain and topography."

Case Title: Pradyot Dev Burman v. Union of India

Bench: Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi

Click here to read more

18. [Chaitanya Baghel] The Supreme Court has witnessed a candid courtroom exchange after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) sought an adjournment in the matter involving Congress leader Chaitanya Baghel. The case came up before a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana. At the outset, the ED sought a postponement of the hearing. Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, appearing for Chaitanya Baghel, informed the Court that he had stayed back specifically for the matter.  "I could have gone. I was stuck for this matter," Hariharan submitted. Responding to the request for adjournment, CJI Surya Kant made a pointed observation on the functioning of the Court during the ongoing partial working days. "That is the beauty of our partial working days. First, it's 'list it, list it'; then comes the adjournment. We read files overnight for these cases," the Chief Justice remarked.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Chaitanya Baghel

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana

Click here to read more

19. [Registry Misplaced urgent file] The Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, had taken serious note of allegations that the Supreme Court Registry had misplaced an urgent case file, resulting in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) remaining unregistered and unlisted for nearly two months. The issue was raised before a Bench headed by the CJI when Advocate Shubhi Shivani Jaideep informed the Court that an urgent matter filed on June 8 had still not been listed because the case file was allegedly misplaced at the Registry's end. “SLP was filed on 8th June, however it has not been registered by the Registry till date. We have written a representation to the Registrar. The case file appears to have been misplaced at the end of the Registry and because of this it has not been listed before the Court,” the counsel submitted. Seeking urgent intervention, the counsel requested the Court to direct the Registry to trace the file, re-register the matter and list it urgently. Expressing concern over the allegation, Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the matter warranted a deeper inquiry if the Registry had indeed misplaced an urgent case file. “If our Registry is misplacing urgent files, do you think I will leave it at that? I will have to see who is to blame,” the CJI remarked. The Chief Justice further said: “It is a very serious matter if the Registry has misplaced the file. If our Registry is misplacing files in urgent matters, then do you think I will only spare the matter by directing listing? I must do something more. Please give me the details. I would like to look into this inefficiency, what is the reason behind it.”

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana

Click here to read more

20. [Transgender Amendment Act] The Supreme Court has issued notice on the Centre’s plea seeking transfer of all petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, pending before various High Courts, and stayed further proceedings in those cases. The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana indicated that the Supreme Court may itself examine the constitutional challenge to avoid conflicting decisions from different High Courts. The matter was taken up on a transfer petition filed by the Union Government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who submitted that multiple challenges to the Amendment Act were pending across the country while the constitutional validity of a Central legislation was already engaging the attention of the Supreme Court. “Constitutional validity of a Central Act is challenged, of which Your Lordships are seized,” Mehta submitted.

Case Title: Union of India v. Nai Bhor Sanstha & Ors.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana

Click here to read more