Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [February 23-March 1, 2026]

1. [Uttar Pradesh SIR] The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a petition filed by displaced persons, who were excluded from the Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls carried out in the State of Uttar Pradesh. A CJI Surya Kant led bench was informed that the petitioners were residents of Akbarnagar, Lucknow where demolitions were carried out for some illegal constructions. The eviction drive was part of the Lucknow district administration’s plan to beautify and develop the locality. The LDA notice said that the occupation in the area was “illegal and on a green belt area, which was liable to be demolished”.
Click here to read more

2. [Pasmanda Quota] The Supreme Court heard a petition filed before it seeking Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservations for 'Pasmanda Muslims'. The plea filed by one Mohammad Waseem Saifi will now be heard in April 2026. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi briefly heard the PIL seeking 10% reservation for Pasmanda Muslims by sub-categorizing the OBCs in terms of the Ranganath Misra Commission report.
Click here to read more

3. [Airfare Hike] The Supreme Court has observed that fluctuations in airfare of private airlines during festive seasons and holidays is a matter of "serious concern". A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, "This is a very serious concern. Otherwise, we don’t entertain 32 petition". Last month, Court had 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.
Click here to read more

4. [WhatsApp Penalty] WhatsApp has informed Supreme Court that it will comply with the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) directions that required the messaging platform to give users control over whether their data is shared with other Meta companies. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told a CJI Kant led bench that Meta wished to withdraw its application made in that regard, "I don't want to press the IA because we are complying with the directions..", Sibal stated. The Supreme Court is hearing the appeal filed by Meta Platforms against the order of Competition Commission of India imposing a penalty of 213.14 crores for WhatsApp's 'take it or leave it' privacy policy.
Click here to read more

5. [Sabarimala Gold Theft] Pankaj Bhandari, the CEO of Smart Creations, Chennai has approached the Supreme Court of India challenging his arrest in connection with the case related to the alleged misappropriation of gold from the Sabarimala temple. The Dwarapalaka idols of Sabarimala were taken to Smart Creations for gold plating. Bhandari was arrested on December 19, 2025. Bhandari has filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the Kerala High Court's decision from February 12, 2026 dismissing his plea. The SLP was taken up by a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma which has directed the plea be listed on March 19, 2026.
Click here to read more

6. [Hemant Soren PMLA Case] The Supreme Court stayed criminal proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren over alleged wilful disobedience of summons issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed an interim order staying proceedings in Complaint Case No. 3952 of 2024 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
Click here to read more

7. [NCERT Textbook Case] The Supreme Court initiated contempt proceedings in connection with an NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook containing a chapter on “corruption in judiciary”. Taking suo motu cognisance of the contents, the Court issued show cause notices to senior education officials and ordered an immediate nationwide withdrawal of the book from all physical and digital platforms. The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice J. Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, directed immediate withdrawal of all physical and digital copies of the book Exploring Society: India and Beyond, First Edition (Part II).
Click here to read more

8. [3-year practice rule] The Supreme Court heard review petitions challenging its judgment mandating a minimum of three years’ legal practice as a prerequisite for entry into judicial service, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant flagging serious concerns over the rule’s impact on young law graduates, particularly women. A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant also comprising of Justices AG Masih and Vipul M Pancholi observed that while courtroom experience is undeniably important, the Court must also weigh the broader consequences of imposing a mandatory practice requirement that renders fresh law graduates ineligible for recruitment to the subordinate judiciary.
Click here to read more

9. [Aravalli Definition] The Supreme Court continued hearing its suo motu proceedings on the definition and demarcation of the Aravalli Hills, directing that status quo on mining and related activities will remain in force until an expert committee is constituted and preliminary issues are addressed. A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, took up the matter amid concerns over environmental protection and the impact of earlier directions on licensed mining operations.
Click here to read more

10. [Fake Cases] The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition seeking measures to curb the alleged misuse of criminal law through the filing of false cases based on fabricated information. The bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant took up the Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who contended that fake criminal complaints, including serious charges such as rape and offences under the SC/ST Act, are being used as tools of harassment and coercion.
Click here to read more

11. [Tribunals] The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the functioning of tribunals across the country, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observing that these bodies have become “a liability for the judiciary” and “a headache” for the Union government. The bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi made the remarks while hearing a matter concerning the functioning of tribunals. Addressing Attorney General R Venkataramani, the Chief Justice said, “Tribunals were created by you (Central government). So it is your headache and a liability for us. Because now the kind of orders we are seeing, barring a few tribunals, these tribunals have become a no man’s land. They are not accountable to anyone.”
Click here to read more

12. [Isha Foundation Crematorium] Supreme Court has called for an amicable settlement of the dispute concerning certain residents of a village in Coimbatore and spiritual organisation Isha Foundation over their decision to set up a crematorium near the village. A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi has requested retired Supreme Court Justice RV Raveendran to mediate the dispute. "We request Justice Raveendran to provide his services as a mediator in the case. Let both parties consult him by tomorrow and let the fee schedule be prepared by the mediator," it has ordered.
Click here to read more

13. [Sonam Wangchuk] The Supreme Court has directed that it will finally hear the habeas corpus petition filed by Sonam Wangchuk's wife on March 10, 2026 at 3.30 PM and reserve the case for orders. As a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale took up the matter, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that a CD had been filed before Court in its response to the allegations made by Sonam Wangchuk that the transcripts of the videos cited against him by the detaining authority are incorrect. When the court expressed its inclination to close the matter on 10th of March, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told the bench, "Please ask them to conclude in 10 minutes." Hearing this, SG Tushar Mehta gave a sharp response, "My opponent will not tell me to conclude in 10 mins..during the arguments they played so many dramatics, did we oppose..". "We played dramatics and you argued on law, so be happy..If you are so conversant with the law you will persuade the judges..they will not be pursuaded by dramatics..", Sibal went on to reply.
Click here to read more

14. [West Bengal SIR] The Supreme Court warned the West Bengal government that it should not make excuses to stall the ongoing Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. In a mentioning made before a CJI Surya Kant led bench, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted, "Judicial officers have been given a training module on what to refer and what not to refer. This court stated chief justice of high court will decide modalities...", referring to the Election Commissions' training module for judicial officers who have been engaged in the SIR process. "Please do not make small excuses to stall the process. This has to end... Let judicial officers work. They will work independently..", CJI Kant responded.
Click here to read more

15. [Nitish Katara Murder Case] The Supreme Court granted furlough to Vikas Yadav, who is serving a 25-year jail term without remission for the 2002 murder of business executive Nitish Katara, allowing him temporary release to spend time with his family during Holi. The bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Vipul M. Pancholi permitted Yadav’s release on furlough till March 7, noting that he has already undergone 23 years of incarceration. “Furlough is now sought on the ground that he wishes to spend time during Holi. Without going into the merits, we permit the petitioner to be released on furlough till March 7,” the Bench said in its order.
Click here to read more

16. [FIR against ZEE Head] The Supreme Court quashed an FIR registered against Ashish Dave, former Channel Head of Zee Rajasthan and Zee 24 Ghanta, in an alleged extortion case, holding that the complaint was vague, bereft of particulars and unworthy of criminal investigation. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the proceedings, expressing “shock” at the manner in which the FIR had been registered. The court observed that the allegations amounted to little more than a “story” without specific details of extortion, victims or instances of misuse of position.
Click here to read more

17. [FIR against PM Modi, Amit Shah] The Supreme Court came down heavily on a lawyer who sought registration of an FIR against Home Minister Amit Shah and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. "Inko cost nahi lagaya high court ne? Band pehna nahi hai.. lag rha koi dangal me utarne aaye hai...", a miffed Chief Justice of India asked. The CJI went on to ask the Advocate before him, "Kitne saal hogaye wakalat karte aapko? Who committed the mistake of giving you a license. Please don't file such petitions..".
Click here to read more

18. [SHANTI Act] The Supreme Court heard a petition challenging provisions of Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, 2025 (SHANTI Act) relating to supplier liability. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that they would like to read the case file well before taking up the matter. “Let us see the regulatory and precautionary measures. Let us not create a scene that anyone before coming to the country thinks whether or not to,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said.
Click here to read more

19. [AI Judgments] The Supreme court has flagged serious concerns over the use of AI generated judgments by a Trial Court saying that it has a direct bearing on integrity of adjudicatory process. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe that the trial court's decision based on non-existent and fake alleged judgments could not be said to be an error in the decision making. "This case assumes considerable institutional concern, not because of the decision that was taken on the merits of the case, but about the process of adjudication and determination," the bench noted while issuing notice to the Attorney General, Solicitor General and the Bar Council of India.
Click here to read more