Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [February 9-15, 2026]

1. [Unnao Custodial Death] The Supreme Court refused a plea moved by Kuldeep Singh Sengar seeking bail in the custodial death case of Unnao rape victim's father. Recently the Delhi High Court had refused to suspend his sentence in the said case. CJI Surya Kant led bench has however requested the Delhi High Court to afford "out-of-turn" hearing to Sengar's appeal challenging his conviction and 10-year sentence in the case. The high court has further been asked to appeal be decided within three months.
Click here to read more

2. [West Bengal SIR] The Supreme Court refused an application challenging the personal appearance of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in proceedings related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the state, terming it “constitutionally improper” and “legally untenable”. "What is unheard in it? This shows trust and faith in the Constitution," the CJI led bench told the counsel for Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha.
Click here to read more

3. [Murugan Temple] The Supreme Court declined to interfere with an order regulating prayers at the Thirupparankundram Lord Murugan Subramaniya Swamy Temple in Tamil Nadu, observing that the decision under challenge appeared to be a “very balanced order.” Notably, the Madras High Court on October 10, 2025 had prohibited animal sacrifice and the use of the name Sikkandar Malai for the Thiruparankundram Hill in Madurai, while permitting Muslim devotees to offer prayers in the Nellithoppu area only during Ramzan and Bakrid under strict conditions.
Click here to read more

4. [Attack on Lawyer] Supreme Court observed that attacks on a lawyer inside a court room amounted to gunda raj. A CJI Surya Kant led bench went on to ask the aggrieved lawyer before it to approach the Delhi High Court for relief. A matter was mentioned before a bench comprising CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Anjaria who referred to an incident that occurred on February 7, 2026 at Tis Hazari Court. While appearing before the court of Additional District Judge Harjeet Singh Pal at Tis Hazari, a lawyer was allegedly attacked by goons.
Click here to read more

5. [West Bengal SIR] The Supreme Court on February 9, 2026 sent a strong signal backing the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, while firmly cautioning the state government against any obstruction in the process. A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria, made it clear that the court would not permit impediments to the SIR exercise, which is currently underway in the state ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections.
Click here to read more

6. [Meta, Whatsapp Privacy Policy] The Supreme Court has adjourned hearing in 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. A request was made on behalf of Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal before a CJI Surya Kant led bench who listed the same for February 23, 2026. Recently, Supreme Court had come down heavily on Meta Platforms and WhatsApp LLC regarding their privacy policy, saying "You can't play with the right of privacy of this country, in the name of data sharing".
Click here to read more

7. [Himachal Pradesh OBC Commission] The Supreme Court set aside an interim order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court that had stayed the state government’s decision to shift the Himachal Pradesh State Commission for Backward Classes from Shimla to Dharamshala, holding that such administrative decisions ordinarily fall within the executive’s policy domain and are not amenable to judicial interference. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N.V. Anjaria allowed the appeal filed by the Himachal Pradesh government against the High Court’s interim stay, while clarifying that the final adjudication of the challenge pending before the High Court would remain unaffected.
Click here to read more

8. [Assam Evictions] The Supreme Court of India orally indicated that the impugned orders of the Gauhati High Court in the Assam forest eviction matters would require modification, with the Court proposing a committee-based mechanism to examine eviction cases. During the hearing of a batch of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) arising out of eviction drives in Assam, the bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe Also Read - False Complaints Clog Criminal Justice System: PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Preventive Safeguards observed that a uniform and mechanical approach to eviction would not be appropriate, particularly where claims of long-standing residence, village recognition, and statutory protections are raised.
Click here to read more

9. [Digital Arrest] The Ministry of Home Affairs has filed a status report before Supreme Court of India stating that it has constituted a high-level Inter-Departmental Committee to comprehensively examine all facets of the issue of “Digital Arrest”. Said Committee has been constituted under the Chairmanship of the Special Secretary (Internal Security), Ministry of Home Affairs, with representation at the level and above of Joint Secretary officers from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Department of Telecommunications (DoT), Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Department of Financial Services (DFS), Ministry of Law & Justice (MoLJ), Ministry of Consumer Affairs (MoCA), Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), National Investigation Agency (NIA), Delhi Police, and the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), with the CEO, I4C acting as Member-Secretary.
Click here to read more

10. [I-Pac Raids] In a complete reversal of her stance, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has told the Supreme Court that Enforcement Directorate allowed her to retrieve devices and physical files during its search at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC, which works with the All India Trinamool Congress. In an affidavit filed on behalf of Banerjee, Supreme Court has been told, "When the Answering Respondent reached both premises, she politely requested the officials of the Enforcement Directorate to be allowed to retrieve the Party’s data and the devices they were stored in and files containing prints of the same. The officers of the Enforcement Directorate present thereat did not object to this request and permitted the Answering Respondent to retrieve some of these devices and physical files. After she had done so, the Answering Respondent left the premises so as to not inconvenience the officials of the Enforcement Directorate in any way....".
Click here to read more

11. [Himanta Biswa] The Supreme Court has observed that when elections approach, political battles increasingly find their way into the country's highest court, while hearing a mention of a petition related to alleged hate speech and a controversial video from Assam. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made the observation when a petition was mentioned before his bench seeking urgent intervention over alleged disturbing speeches and a recent video controversy involving political leaders in Assam.
Click here to read more

12. [Assam Encroachment] The Supreme Court has ruled that constitutional governance demands that environmental protection should be pursued through lawful means and the mandate to clear encroachments from forest land does not authorize arbitrary action. The bench emphasized that the Constitution does not envisage a choice between environmental protection and the rule of law, rather it insists that both coexist and reinforce each other.
Click here to read more

13. [CIC Appointments] The Supreme Court refused a request seeking disclosure of dissent note of the Leader of Opposition (LoP) on the appointments made under the Right To Information Act. Court defended the government's decision saying Government of India will not appoint unqualified persons. The bench added that any illegality in the appointment can be specifically and separately challenged. A submission in this regard was made by Advocate Prashant Bhushan in a a public interest litigation filed by activist and Advocate Prashant Bhushan seeking directions for filling up the vacant posts in Information Commissions across the country, as mandated under the RTI Act, 2005.
Click here to read more

14. [2020 Delhi Riots] The Supreme Court sought the response of the State in a bail plea filed by Tasleem Ahmed, an accused in the larger conspiracy case relating to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale issued notice to the State while hearing Ahmed’s challenge to the denial of bail by the other courts. Advocate Mehmood Pracha and AoR RHA Sikander appeared for Ahmed. Also Read - False Complaints Clog Criminal Justice System: PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Preventive Safeguards The matter arises out of FIRs registered in connection with the alleged conspiracy behind the communal violence that broke out in parts of Delhi in February 2020, leading to the loss of lives and extensive damage to property.
Click here to read more

15. [Murshidabad Violence] The Supreme Court on February 11, 2026 said that the Calcutta High Court will examine whether the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was rightly invoked in the Murshidabad violence case in West Bengal, where the National Investigation Agency has taken over the probe. “Whether UAPA should be invoked or not is something the High Court can examine after looking at the material. We will ask the NIA to submit a report in sealed cover,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said during the hearing. A bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the West Bengal government to pursue its challenge to the NIA investigation before the Calcutta High Court, observing that the High Court is the appropriate forum to assess the Centre’s decision to transfer the probe. The NIA has invoked Section 15 of the UAPA, which defines a terrorist act, contending that the violence in Murshidabad had implications for India’s economic security.
Click here to read more

16. [Rampur CRPF Attack] The Supreme Court agreed to examine the Uttar Pradesh government’s challenge to an Allahabad High Court judgment that set aside the death sentence awarded to four men and life imprisonment to another in the 2007 terror attack on a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) camp in Rampur. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the five accused on the plea filed by the State and directed that the matter be listed for hearing after four weeks.
Click here to read more

17. [Doctors Exclusion from CP Act] The Supreme Court issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation seeking exemption of medical professionals from the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, reopening a three-decade-old debate on whether healthcare services should be treated as “consumer services” under law. The PIL came up for hearing before the bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria. The bench issued notice and posted the matter for hearing on April 6.
Click here to read more

18. [Tikku Murder] Vijay Bhivajirao Palande, an accused in the 2012 murder of Delhi-based businessman Arunkumar Tikku, has approached the Supreme Court seeking the removal of Ujjwal Nikam, Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament, from his role as Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the case. The petition challenges Nikam’s continuation as SPP for the State of Maharashtra following his nomination to the Rajya Sabha, contending that his parliamentary position makes his prosecutorial role constitutionally impermissible.
Click here to read more

19. [Talaq-e-Hasan] The Supreme Court of India stayed the operation of an alleged talaq-e-hasan divorce issued by a Muslim husband to his illiterate wife, observing that the husband did not enter appearance to defend serious allegations levelled against him. A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order in a petition arising from the Benazeer Heena v. Union of India matter, while also issuing notice in a connected petition challenging the constitutional validity of talaq-e-hasan.
Click here to read more

20. [Parsi Identity] The Supreme Court of India heard a constitutional challenge raising questions about gender discrimination within the Parsi community, with Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria describing a 1908 Bombay High Court ruling governing Parsi identity as “a blot on the fair name of an otherwise industrious and loved community.” A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 32 by a minor child through his mother, a Parsi-Zoroastrian woman married to a non-Parsi man.
Click here to read more

21. [Sonam Wangchuk] The Supreme Court was told that there is nothing alarming about the health conditions of Sonam Wangchuk, who is currently detained under the National Security Act (NSA). "We have examined the health aspect..he has some digestive issues..but nothing to be alarmed..it wont be possible or desirable..We gave utmost consideration..", Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale.
Click here to read more

22. [Post Facto EC] The Supreme Court came down heavily on Congress leader Jairam Ramesh over his plea against the Centre's office memorandum to implement the court's recent verdict on retrospective environmental clearances. "Why did you not file a review? You are just raising all these grounds in a writ. Be ready to face exemplary costs! All this is just for media publicity", the Chief Justice of India told Ramesh. Ramesh challenged the Court's November 2025 verdict recalling its landmark Vanashakti judgment from May 2025, which barred the Central government from granting retrospective environmental clearances (ECs) for being bad in law and detrimental to public health.
Click here to read more

23. [Dowry Death Case] The Supreme Court has on February 9 set aside a bail order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a dowry death case, describing it as “one of the most shocking and disappointing orders” and holding that it resulted in a “travesty of justice”. Allowing an appeal filed by the father of the deceased, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan directed the accused husband to immediately surrender and be taken into judicial custody. Also Read - False Complaints Clog Criminal Justice System: PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Preventive Safeguards The appeal arose from an October 10, 2025 order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to Devraj Verma alias Golu, the husband of a 22-year-old woman who died under suspicious circumstances barely three months after her marriage. The case relates to FIR No. 188 of 2025 registered at Kotwali Bhinga police station in Shrawasti district, Uttar Pradesh, under Sections 85 and 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Click here to read more

24. [Terror Funding Case] The Supreme Court heard at length the bail plea by Shabir Ahmad Shah, who is facing prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly conspiring to secede Jammu and Kashmir from India. The Court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on February 25 at 2 PM, after granting the National Investigation Agency (NIA) additional time to place further material on record. Also Read - False Complaints Clog Criminal Justice System: PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Preventive Safeguards The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard detailed submissions from Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Shah, and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the NIA.
Click here to read more

25. [Mahashivratri 2026] The Supreme Court refused a petition seeking to restrain the conduct of Mahashivratri puja at the premises of the Ladle Mashak Dargah in Aland town of Kalaburagi district, Karnataka. The plea concerned special Mahashivratri prayers proposed to be offered to the Raghava Chaitanya Shivalinga located within the Hazrat Ladle Mashak Dargah premises. Mahashivratri this year falls on February 15, 2026. Also Read - False Complaints Clog Criminal Justice System: PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Preventive Safeguards A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma told the petitioner Khaleel Ansari that Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in this matter.
Click here to read more

26. [Delay in NIA Trials] The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Chief Secretaries of 17 States/ UTs on the establishing of Special NIA Courts, considering the increased pendency of NIA trials. The bench CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria was hearing the issue of delays in NIA trials, considering the backlog of cases before the district courts. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatti, appearing for the Union, informed the bench that Union has issued certain norms for providing financial assistance of Rs. 1 Crores each for recurring and non-recurring expenditure incurred on setting up of exclusive Special Courts on a reimbursement basis, subject to actuals for the concerned states.
Click here to read more

27. [Vikram Bhatt] The Supreme Court granted interim bail to filmmaker Vikram Bhatt, his wife Shwetambari V Bhatt, in a case pertaining to nearly ₹30 crore in alleged fraud. Bhatt and his wife had approached the top court after the Rajasthan High Court on January 31, 2026 had refused them any relief. Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani's bench had emphasised it would not be appropriate to grant bail at this juncture. Mumbai film producer Vikram Bhatt had entered into an agreement with complainant Dr. Ajay Murdia for the production of four films for ₹47 crores. Indira Entertainment LLP was formed and from the complainant, in various phases, an amount exceeding ₹42.70 crores was got paid in the names of vendors. In reality, only one film was released; the second was left incomplete; the third was only about 25% completed; and shooting of the fourth has not commenced till date.
Click here to read more

28. [SC Gender Handbook] Supreme Court recently called for review of its 'Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes', published by Supreme Court in 2023 under the initiative of Harvard-educated former CJI DY Chandrachud to sensitise and assist judges and lawyers on gender-unjust terms, A CJI Surya Kant led bench has called the Handbook too technical and Harvard-oriented to be of any assistance to common people. As the top court was hearing a suo motu case registered against the insensitive Allahabad High Court judgment that had ruled 'grabbing the breasts' and 'loosening the pyjama string' did not amount to attempt to rape, a bench also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria said the handbook gave forensic meanings to different aspects of sexual assault.
Click here to read more

29. [Ghooskhor Pandat] The Supreme Court directed the makers of the Netflix film “Ghooskhor Pandat” to change its title, holding that it was denigrative of a particular community and could not be permitted under the constitutional framework governing free speech. The bench was hearing a public interest litigation seeking a stay on the release and screening of the upcoming film. The petition alleged that “Ghooskhor Pandat” promotes caste and religion-based stereotyping and hurts the dignity and religious sentiments of the Brahmin community.
Click here to read more

30. [Veera Raja Veera Copyright Case] The Supreme Court urged music composer AR Rahman to acknowledge the contribution of Dhrupad vocalist Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar in connection with the song Veera Raja Veera from the film Ponniyin Selvan II. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that while authorship would have to be examined, there was a deeper issue of recognition going beyond legal rights. Also Read - False Complaints Clog Criminal Justice System: PIL In Supreme Court Seeks Preventive Safeguards "See, there should be some acknowledgement. They are traditional worshippers of classical music,” Justice Bagchi told senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahman.
Click here to read more

31. [Manipur Violence] The Supreme Court took up the case pertaining to Manipur Violence, an ethnic conflict that began in May 2023 which was triggered after a Manipur High Court recommendation suggesting consideration of Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for the Meitei community. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, present before court, told the bench that the situation in the state had become better. "The situation is peaceful. Normal movement is happening. Local environment can be better appreciated by High Court..there is some interference from neighbouring Myanmar etc..", the SG stated. A CJI Surya Kant led bench went on to mull if the Manipur High Court could be entrusted with monitoring the trials in cases registered over the violent clashes that took place in Manipur. "In view of the fact that a new Chief Justice has taken charge in Manipur High Court let there be instructions regarding the same," the Court ordered.
Click here to read more