Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [May 4 - May 10, 2026]

1. [TN Hung Assembly] A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Tamil Nadu Governor’s decision refusing to invite the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), the single largest party in the newly elected 17th Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, to form the government following the hung Assembly verdict. Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition raises issues concerning constitutional governance, parliamentary democracy and the scope of gubernatorial discretion in cases of fractured electoral mandates.
Click here to read more

2. [ West Bengal VC appointments] The Supreme Court brought an end to the long-standing tussle between the West Bengal government and Governor R N Ravi over appointments of vice chancellors in state universities, directing the Governor to appoint vice chancellors to three remaining universities within four weeks. The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that the appointments be made from the names shortlisted by a search-cum-selection committee headed by former Chief Justice of India UU Lalit.
Click here to read more

3. [ADAG Probe] The Supreme Court orally remarked that it cannot direct arrest of Anil Ambani in connection with the case concerning banking frauds, allegedly involving Reliance Communications Ltd. This remark fell from the court as a response to continued submissions by Advocate Prashant Bhushan seeking arrest of Anil Ambani and his son. "I find it very puzzling that Anil Ambani has not been arrested till now, he is the kingpin. It is as if he is some holy cow, he is above being arrested..this is very puzzling to me..they are arresting some lower functionaries, " Bhushan told the bench.
Click here to read more

4. [Operation Sindoor remarks] The Supreme Court has told BJP leader Vijay Shah that he should have apologized immediately over his remarks referring to Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as a “sister of terrorists”. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice 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. "Politicians are very articulate, they know how to praise somebody," CJI Surya Kant said as Solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the bench that in his personal view, Shah wanted to praise the lady and he had tendered his apology also immediately.
Click here to read more

5. [UGC Regulations] The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition challenging the constitutional validity of certain regulations of the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 (‘2026 Regulations’), University Grants Commission (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023 (‘2023 Regulations) and University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2012 (‘2012 Regulations’). A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the plea after hearing Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for the petitioners.
Click here to read more

6. [AAP Gujarat's Facebook account] The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union government on a plea filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) challenging the blocking and suspension of its Gujarat unit’s Instagram handle “@aapgujarat” and Facebook page. The Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe tagged the matter with a pending public interest litigation filed by the Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC), which challenges the blocking of social media accounts and online content without prior notice to users.
Click here to read more

7. [Kapur Family Dispute] The Supreme Court referred the ₹30,000 crore dispute between 80-year-old Rani Kapur and her daughter-in-law Priya Sachdev Kapur to mediation, while urging the family to refrain from making public statements or discussing the matter on social media. The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan appointed former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud as the mediator to facilitate discussions between the parties.
Click here to read more

8. [AI in legal drafting] The Supreme Court of India has proposed to frame guidelines for the bar and bench to regulate the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in drafting of judgments and filing petitions. A bench of justice PS Narasimha and justice Alok Aradhe who took up the issue of use of AI generated judgments by a Trial Court said, “We are not suggesting people not to use AI. But we should have control over the information. Ultimately it is data that is filed before the court that will be used in the judgments. We want some responsibility to be fixed in this regard.”
Click here to read more

9. [Young Lawyer custody row] Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has sought a report from the Andhra Pradesh High Court administration over a controversial courtroom exchange involving a lawyer, even as the direction to send the advocate to judicial custody was ultimately not enforced following intervention by the Bar. The incident took place earlier this week before Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao during the hearing of a petition challenging the issuance of a Look Out Circular (LoC) and the impounding of a passport.
Click here to read more

10. [AOR Exam Cancellation] A writ petition has been filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 challenging the decision to cancel the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) Examination for 2026, calling the move “ex facie arbitrary” and violative of fundamental rights. The petition filed through AoR Mandeep Kalra assails a notice dated April 30, 2026, issued by the Registrar (Judicial) and Secretary, Board of Examiners, which stated that the AOR examination would not be conducted this year “in view of the overall strength of the AORs,” and that the next examination is only “likely” in 2027.
Click here to read more

11. [Sabarimala] The Supreme Court's 9-judge bench hearing the petitions filed against its 2018 verdict which had set aside the traditional ban on women aged 10–50 years to enter the Sabarimala Temple questioned the original petitioners, Indian young Lawyers Association over their filing of the PIL in the first place, way back in 2006. "It is a clear case of abuse of process of law..we are very very sorry to say this," Justice Sundresh observed. As the counsel for the association took the bench through the news reports on which the PIL was based, Justice BV Nagarathna asked, "How does a juristic body have any beliefs? How can you have conscience?" When the counsel stated that the deity is said to not like young ladies and this could never be the belief of the devotees, Justice Nagarathna said, "How are you concerned with all this..you please tell us..". CJI Surya Kant also questioned the petitioners, "Are you the Chief Minister of the country?"
Click here to read more

12. [Panchkula Land Case] The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had granted a clean chit to former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and Associated Journals Limited (AJL) in a case relating to the re-allotment of land in Panchkula. The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma sought responses from the respondents and listed the matter for further hearing in July.
Click here to read more

13. [West Bengal Elections] The Supreme Court refused to consider a plea seeking the continuance of central forces in West Bengal after the conclusion of the assembly polls to curb post-election violence. Senior Advocate VV Giri mentioned the plea before a CJI Surya Kant led bench. Giri, appearing for a party, contended that the central forces should be allowed to remain in the state, keeping in mind the large-scale post-poll violence witnessed in the state in 2021.
Click here to read more

14. [PIL on Aadhar] The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking sweeping changes to the Aadhaar enrolment framework, including a direction to restrict issuance of new Aadhaar numbers only to children up to the age of six years and to introduce stringent verification norms for adolescents and adults. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi aid the appropriate recourse for the petitioner would be to bring all these issues to the notice of the government to enable them to take cognizance of them.
Click here to read more

15. [AgustaWestland Scam] The Supreme Court agreed to hear the plea of alleged middleman Christian Michel James seeking release from jail in the ₹3,600-crore AgustaWestland VVIP Chopper Scam case. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Centre, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), seeking their response within four weeks. James has challenged Article 17 of the India–UAE extradition treaty, arguing that it allows prosecution for offences beyond those for which extradition was granted.
Click here to read more

16. [Acid Attack Victims] The Supreme Court ordered that the term "acid attack victims" as under the Rights of Persons With Disability Act shall also include victims to whom acid has been administered and further include those who have suffered internal injury even though there is no outer disfigurement. A CJI Surya Kant led bench, which took up the PIL by acid-attack survivor Shaheen Malik was told by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi that the schedule appended to the 2016 Persons with Disability Act has specified disabilities which includes only physical disability.
Click here to read more

17. [Margadasi Financiers Case] The Supreme Court issued notice to the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and Margadarsi Financiers in a case alleging unauthorised collection of public deposits, while indicating that the entity’s assets could be attached despite the death of its proprietor, Ramoji Rao. The bench led by Justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh made it clear that criminal proceedings involving a continuing financial entity do not abate merely due to the death of an individual.
Click here to read more

18. [Bail Conditions] The Supreme Court heard its suo motu case registered over bail conditions imposed by the Odisha High Court and the district judiciary in the state while granting bail to certain Adivasi protestors. A CJI Surya Kant led bench, taking notice of the obnoxious conditions being imposed by the judiciary wherein it asked the accused to clean police stations, told the Advocate General for the State of Odisha, "We do not expect that the judiciary in 2026 shall impose these kinds of conditions". While setting aside the conditions imposed on the accused persons, the bench noted, "We are deeply disappointed and disheartened, and express our strongest disapproval of the manner in which Odisha judiciary has passed such degrading conditions which are ex facie violative of fundamental rights. We declare the conditions, or similarly worded conditions, imposed by the state judiciary while granting bail, as null and void. We deem it appropriate to issue omnibus directions to all courts in Odisha to delete such offending conditions from their orders and to refrain from substituting them with other onerous requirements. The accused shall continue to remain in bail and shall be deemed to have been relieved of the conditions."
Click here to read more

19. [Transgender Persons Act] A CJI Surya Kant led bench of the Supreme Court issued notice in petitions 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. On a request to stay the legislation in the interim being made, CJI Surya Kant made it clear that "there was no question of staying anything".
Click here to read more