Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [June 1-7, 2026]

1. [Disability Rights] The Supreme Court issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation seeking effective implementation of statutory directions issued by Disability Commissions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and reforms to address structural gaps in their functioning. The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice PB Varale fixed the matter for hearing on July 21, 2026. Advocate Rahul Bajaj, appearing in the matter, submitted that the petition sought guidelines for the implementation of Sections 89 and 93 of the RPwD Act, which deal with penal consequences in cases where information is not furnished or where recommendations of Disability Commissions are not complied with.
Click here to read more

2. [NEET UG 2026] The Supreme Court refused a plea made before it to conduct re-test of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET)-UG 2026, scheduled on June 21, through a Computer-Based Test (CBT) mode. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar was hearing a petition by RJD MP Sudhakar Singh which demanded immediate migration of NEET examinations to a CBT-based system. The bench posted the matter to July, effectively denying relief of NEET re-test. Justice Narasimha observed that the Court had already dismissed similar pleas in the past. "You know what kind of problems we are having. The examination was cancelled, it is being reconducted...the kind of pressure that they have, similar matters we have dismissed," Justice Narasimha observed.
Click here to read more

3. [Waqf Suits] The Supreme Court questioned the exemption for Waqf institutions from paying court fees to State Waqf Tribunals. A petition has been filed before the Court challenging the decision of Gujarat High Court from January this year. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar asked Advocate Ejaz Maqbool appearing before it, "How can there be an exemption? What is the law which allows you to take an exemption from court fees?" Maqbool requested court to keep the matter after some time. The bench agreed to list the matter in August.
Click here to read more

4. [West Bengal SIR] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking greater transparency and procedural safeguards in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls conducted in West Bengal. The petition filed through AoR Neha Rathi seeks directions to the Election Commission and other authorities to disclose constituency-wise data on voter addition and deletion applications, make public the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) governing SIR appeals, and issue simplified guidelines to assist affected voters.
Click here to read more

5. [NDPS] The Supreme Court refused to grant bail to an accused arrested in a narcotics case involving alleged possession of MDMA tablets, observing that those involved in the drug trade must be dealt with strictly because of the devastating impact of narcotics on young people. The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice V. Mohana dismissed the accused's plea challenging an order of the Madras High Court, which had earlier denied him bail. While rejecting the plea, Justice Nath made strong remarks on the menace of drug trafficking and its societal consequences. "People dealing with drugs will have to be dealt with a very firm hand. They are destroying the lives of youths of this country generation after generation," the Court observed.
Click here to read more

6. [Meerut Bride Murder Case] A courtroom exchange in the Supreme Court drew attention as the Court refused to entertain a bail plea filed by a man, namely Sagar accused of killing a woman and her father in Meerut allegedly over a case of one-sided love, with Justice Vikram Nath comparing the allegations to the plot of an Ajay Devgn film. The Bench led by Justice Vikram Nath was hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court dated May 15, 2025, which had refused bail to the accused, Sagar, in a 2020 murder case arising from Uttar Pradesh's Meerut district. During the hearing, Justice Nath expressed strong disapproval of the allegations against the accused. “My God! You killed the girlfriend. You killed the father-in-law, brother-in-law, everyone. You are a daredevil. Haven't you seen that movie, Bihar one with Ajay Devgn,” the judge remarked.
Click here to read more

7. [Aravalli Definition] The Supreme Court of India has constituted a five-member High Powered Committee for defining the Aravalli Hills. The proposed Committee comprises of experts possessing diverse and multidisciplinary expertise across a broad spectrum of relevant fields, inter alia, the geological and soil characteristics of the region, its biodiversity, flora and fauna, mineral wealth and natural resources, as well as the scientific and accurate geo mapping of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges. Accordingly, the CJI Surya Kant led bench has directed that the Committee shall comprise of the Director General, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) as ex officio Chairperson and the following as members: Dr. Subhash Ashutosh, Ex-Director General, Forest Survey of India; Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Director (Retd.), Geological Survey of India; Brij Mohan Singh Rathore, Former Joint Secretary, MoEFCC – Member; and, Prof. Ashok K. Bhatnagar, Former Professor and Head of Botany at Delhi University.
Click here to read more

8. [Time Stamped VVPAT Slips] The Supreme Court has recently disposed of a public interest litigation seeking the introduction of exact time-stamping on Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips, directing that the plea be treated as a representation before the Election Commission of India (ECI) for consideration in accordance with law. The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi observed that while the issue raised by the petitioner was aimed at strengthening the fairness and transparency of the electoral process, the feasibility of the proposed measures fell within the policy and technical domain of the Election Commission.
Click here to read more

9. [Adjournment Guidelines] The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking directions for framing uniform guidelines on time-bound disposal of cases and regulation of adjournments across courts in India. The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and V Mohana dismissed the plea filed by a lawyer appearing in person, who had also sought a structured national case flow management policy applicable to all courts. During the hearing, the Court questioned the petitioner on his appearance.
Click here to read more

10. [Senior Citizens Act] The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed by a Rajasthan man challenging an eviction order passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, while expressing disapproval over the ongoing property dispute between him and his elderly father. The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V. Mohana dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) after a brief hearing marked by sharp observations from the Court. “What kind of a son are you? Fighting with your own father!? It’s very unfortunate. Go and take care of your father. Let him live in peace for whatever remainder period of his life,” Justice Nath remarked.
Click here to read more

11. [Mental Cruelty] The Supreme Court has held that denial of conjugal rights, including persistent refusal of sexual intercourse without a reasonable cause, amounts to mental cruelty and is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Court said Indian courts have consistently recognised that withholding sexual intimacy can cause severe emotional distress and strike at the foundation of a marriage. It added that persistent withdrawal from the basic aspects of married life may have legal consequences while assessing allegations of mental cruelty.
Click here to read more

12. [WFI-Vinesh Phogat Dispute] The Supreme Court has declined to expunge the adverse observations made by the Delhi High Court against the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) in proceedings relating to wrestler Vinesh Phogat over her participation in the Asian Games 2026 selection trials. A Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar said the challenge had become infructuous in light of subsequent developments, while clarifying that its order should not be construed as an endorsement of the findings recorded by the High Court.
Click here to read more