Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [March 30-April 5, 2026]
1. [POCSO Case] An appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the grant of anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati by the Allahabad High Court in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The Special Leave Petition (SLP), moved by the complainant Ashutosh Brahmachari, questions the legal basis of the High Court’s March 25 order, contending that anticipatory bail in serious offences involving minors should be granted only in exceptional circumstances.
Click here to read more
2. [Land Disputes] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the creation of a separate Revenue Judicial Service Cadre for adjudication of land disputes across the country. 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
3. [Plea Seeking SEBI Disclosure Of UBOs In AIFs] The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing of a plea filed by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra seeking greater transparency in foreign and alternative investment structures, including mandatory public disclosure of ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs) and portfolio details. A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan deferred the matter after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing virtually, sought additional time to assist the Court in person.
Click here to read more
4. [Bhojshala Dispute] The Supreme Court has said that the Madhya Pradesh High Court will consider the objections raised by the Muslim side over the ongoing Archeological Survey of India’s survey of the disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque site. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi heard senior advocate Salman Khurshid, appearing for the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society. The Bhojshala site has for decades been at the centre of competing claims by Hindu and Muslim groups. Hindus regard the monument as the ancient temple of Maa Vagdevi Saraswati, while Muslims identify the structure as the Kamal Maula mosque.
Click here to read more
5. [DA Case] The Supreme Court granted an interim stay on trial proceedings against Tamil Nadu Minister Durai Murugan in a disproportionate assets case, while issuing notice on his challenge to a Madras High Court order that had revived the prosecution. The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order while hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Murugan, who currently serves as the Water Resources Minister in the government led by Chief Minister MK Stalin. The case pertains to allegations that Murugan, during his tenure as Minister for Public Works and Forest Department between 1996 and 2001, amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is alleged that properties were acquired not only in his name but also in the names of his wife and son.
Click here to read more
6. [SC fines Centre] Pulling up the Union government for pursuing what it termed unnecessary litigation, the Supreme Court imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the Centre while dismissing its challenge to a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that had reinstated a CISF constable and granted him partial back wages. The bench of Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan refused to interfere with the High Court’s ruling, which had set aside the constable’s dismissal and awarded 25% back wages, finding the punishment to be disproportionate.
Click here to read more
7. [Gadhchiroli Arson Case] A judge of the Supreme Court recused from hearing the bail plea of Surendra Gadling in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case, marking yet another recusal in the matter which has seen repeated changes in bench composition. Justice Atul Chandurkar withdrew from the proceedings when the case was taken up before a Bench also comprising Justice J. K. Maheshwari. Gadling has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Bombay High Court order that denied him bail in the Gadchiroli arson case. He has been in custody since June 2018 and is also an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), over alleged Maoist links.
Click here to read more
8. [Chambal Illegal Sand Mining Case] The Supreme Court came down heavily on rampant illegal sand mining in the Chambal sanctuary, terming the situation “an extremely sad state of affairs” and warning that the “mining mafia are the new dacoits.” The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a suo motu matter concerning large-scale illegal mining activities affecting the fragile ecosystem of the Chambal river, particularly the endangered gharial habitat.
Click here to read more
9. [West Bengal SIR] After a serious incident occurred in Malda where judicial officers were allegedly attacked and held hostage during electoral roll revision work, the Chief Justice of India has called West Bengal a highly polarized state. "Unfortunately in West Bengal each one speaks political language and this is the most polarized state. You are forcing us to make observations. Do you think we are not aware of who the miscreants are..", CJI Surya Kant noted while issuing directions after the incidents of violence occurred in West Bengal. Supreme Court has said the incident is a brazen attempt not only to browbeat judicial officers but also challenges authority of this court. It said this was not a routine incident but appeared to be calculated, motivated move to demoralize the judicial officers and stop the ongoing process. "We will not allow anyone to interfere and take law in their hands in order to create psychological attack on mind of judicial officers. This is also an abdication of duty by West Bengal government and the officers need to furnish reasons why even after being informed they did not ensure safe evacuation of the judicial officers", the court recorded in its order.
Click here to read more
10. [Transgender Persons Act 2026] A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, contending that the law dismantles the fundamental right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender as recognised in the landmark NALSA judgment. Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition filed by Advocate Nipun Katyal argues that the amendment inflicts “irreparable constitutional injury” by violating rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. It raises a core constitutional question: whether the State can legally define a person’s gender identity in place of their self-perception.
Click here to read more