Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [March 23-29, 2026]

1. [4-yr-old's rape case] The Supreme Court has come down heavily on Gurugram Police for its conduct in the investigation into a four-year-old’s sexual assault case and stated that the conduct of officers with the child and her parents reflected “heights of insensivity". The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi criticised the police for cross-examining the child in the “worst form of secondary victimisation" and “disrespect". Haryana government has accordingly been directed to expeditiously notify the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to take over the investigation while asking Gurugram Police to hand over case records by Thursday. Court has directed that a three-member SIT comprising Haryana cadre women IPS officers will probe the four-year-old's rape case.
Click here to read more

2. [Uttam Nagar Violence] The Supreme Court refused to intervene in the probe into the killing of a 26-year-old man, Taran Kumar, in West Delhi’s Uttam Nagar on March 4 following an altercation over a water balloon on Holi. After a balloon hit a Muslim woman, which led to an altercation between the two families, resulting in injuries to at least eight people, the 26-year-old Taran Kumar succumbed to his injuries a few days later. Fourteen people have been arrested, and two minors apprehended over the alleged murder. Inflammatory social media posts and provocative speeches over the incident have triggered communal tensions.
Click here to read more

3. [Kerala Sexual Assault Case] The Supreme Court expunged certain observations made by the Kerala High Court while granting anticipatory bail to Kerala MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in a case involving allegations of rape, coercion and forced abortion. The bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N K Singh was hearing a plea filed by the survivor, who challenged both the grant of anticipatory bail and certain remarks made against her in the High Court’s order.
Click here to read more

4. [SC Lawyers Welfare Fund] The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking creation of a dedicated welfare fund for advocates practicing before the apex court. The bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe was hearing the petition filed under Article 21 of the Constitution, raising concerns over the absence of a structured welfare mechanism for Supreme Court lawyers. Appearing for the SCBA, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh argued that there exists a “statutory vacuum” in the framework governing advocates’ welfare funds.
Click here to read more

5. [ADAG Probe] The Supreme Court was informed that Enforcement Directorate has constituted a SIT as directed by court to probe the into banking frauds, allegedly involving Reliance Communications Ltd., its group companies and promoter Anil Ambani. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed a CJI Surya Kant led bench that CBI had so far registered eight separate cases involving alleged siphoning off nearly Rs 41,000 crore from bank loans. Four top officials of ADAG group have been arrested so far, Mehta added. SG Mehta further informed the bench that CBI is taking help of financial experts to unravel the complex routing and re-routing of money.
Click here to read more

6. [Vande Mataram Row] The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea challenging the Home Ministry's Advisory mandating singing of all six stanzas of National Song ‘Vande Mataram’. The Union Home Ministry recently mandated the singing of all six stanzas of 'Vande Mataram' at schools and government events, restoring its original length. This directive, effective February 6, 2026, sets a 3 minute 10 second duration and outlines specific protocols for its rendition, marking the song's 150th anniversary.
Click here to read more

7. [I-PAC Raids] The Supreme Court raised sharp questions to the West Bengal government over its objection to the maintainability of a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), asking whether officers of the agency cease to enjoy fundamental rights merely because they are government officials. The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria was hearing petitions arising out of alleged obstruction by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and state authorities during an ED search at the office of Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) in Kolkata on January 8, in connection with a money laundering probe.
Click here to read more

8. [De-notified Tribes] While Chief Justice of India Surya Kant raised questions behind the intent of the petition, the Supreme Court refused a plea seeking directions to include the Denotified Nomadic Tribes (DNTs) as a distinct category in the upcoming national Census. The bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi disposed of the petition, observing that such classifications fell within the domain of government policy and were “not justiciable” by the court.
Click here to read more

9. [West Bengal SIR] The Supreme Court expressed its concerns over continuous impediments coming in the way of the special intensive revision of electoral rolls being conducted in the state of West Bengal by the Election Commission of India. "I was reading an article on SIR. Except West Bengal, everywhere it has happened smoothly...The article mentioned this", CJI Kant said while hearing fresh issues flagged by the state. On persistant issues being raised about supplementary list not being published by the ECI, Justice Bagchi said, "Do you understand the kind of pressure we have put on judicial officers? It's not a question of apportioning blame, but ensuring a common platform through intervention of experiment by judicial...we are requesting Mr. Naidu let him help Chief Justice and entire team to phase remainder of the work. We hope and trust we will have all adjudicated in time."
Click here to read more

10. [Medically Discharged Cadets] The Supreme Court pressed the Union government for a status update in a suo motu case concerning disability benefits for military cadets, underscoring that such proceedings must not be reduced to a mere formality. The bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan sought clarity on the progress made so far, with Justice Nagarathna pointedly asking, “What are the instructions? What is the progress?” The Bench recorded the submission, noting that in its earlier order dated March 10, 2026, the matter had been adjourned for further consideration. It observed that the Solicitor General now seeks time to apprise the Court of developments after obtaining instructions from the authorities concerned.
Click here to read more

11. [PIL on False Complaints] The Supreme Court issued notice on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking sweeping directions to the Centre and States to put in place preventive mechanisms against false complaints, fabricated evidence and frivolous criminal cases. A CJI Surya Kant led bench has issued notice on the petition an listed the same on May 11, 2026. The petitioner, Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has urged the Court to direct authorities to install prominent “Display Boards” at all police stations, tehsil and district court premises, panchayat bhawans, municipal offices and educational institutions, clearly spelling out the statutory provisions and punishments for false complaints, false charges, false statements, false information and false evidence. The plea contends that such disclosures are necessary to safeguard the right to life, personal liberty, dignity and reputation of innocent citizens under Article 21.
Click here to read more

12. [Sabarimala] The Supreme court has been informed that for the Sabarimala Temple, the final authority on religious customs, rituals, and practices is the hereditary Thanthri of the Thazhamon family who has consistently affirmed, that the restriction on the entry of women is an ancient and essential custom for the welfare of the temple. "The restriction at Sabarimala is not based on caste or any such "section" of Hindus. The temple is unique in its egalitarianism, welcoming people of all castes and even other religions. The restriction is based on age and is uniformly applicable to all women of that age group, irrespective of their caste, class, or section. It is directly linked to the unique 'Naishtika Brahmacharya' character of the deity, a matter of religious doctrine, not social discrimination," the written submissions filed before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Travancore Dewaswom Board states.
Click here to read more

13. [Women SSC Officers] In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court as a one time measure has ruled that women Short Service Commission officers (SSC) of the Army, Navy and Air Force who were released after 14 years of service will be entitled to pension benefits. Officers who were considered for Permanent Commission but were denied it will be deemed to have completed 20 years of qualifying service for the purpose of pension. In September 2025 the Supreme Court had reserved its judgment on the plea alleging discrimination in grant of permanent commission to women short-service commission officers (SSCO). A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N Kotiswar Singh heard appeals filed against the July 2024 Armed Forces Tribunal order denying permanent commissions.
Click here to read more

14. [SC/ST status] The Supreme Court held that a person who converts to a religion other than Hinduism, Sikhism or Buddhism ceases to be a member of a Scheduled Caste and cannot claim protection under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria upheld a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, ruling that conversion to Christianity results in the “immediate and complete loss” of Scheduled Caste (SC) status. “No person who professes a religion other than Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist shall be a member of Scheduled caste. Conversion to any other religion results in loss of Scheduled caste status,” the Court held.
Click here to read more

15. [Kolkata Metro Orange Line] The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the West Bengal government against the Calcutta high Court's order from December 2025 directing the State Government/Traffic Police to decide two consecutive weekend night traffic blockade dates for construction/erection of piers of the Orange metro line in Kolkata. While refusing to entertain the plea field by Mamata Banerjee led government, a CJI Surya Kant led bench said. This response came to a request made by the state government seeking time till May on account of upcoming elections. Earlier before the High Court, the state had cited festival season due to which the construction work was delayed.
Click here to read more

16. [Teesta III Dam] The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea challenging the reconstruction and disinvestment of the Teesta-III Hydroelectric Power Project in Sikkim, raising serious concerns over environmental safety, disaster preparedness, and transparency in decision-making following the devastating 2023 Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF). The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) arising from a Sikkim High Court judgment dated August 7, 2025, which had dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the State’s decision to reconstruct and disinvest its stake in the project.
Click here to read more