Monthly Review: July 2026

The start of July marked the final two weeks of the Court’s partial working days. The remainder of the month witnessed a flurry of activities, a heavy causelist and a steadily mounting docket. 

On the administrative side, a fresh roster notified by the Chief Justice, set up four special benches to hear the oldest civil and criminal cases. The benches sat every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday through the month to expedite the disposal of ‘legacy matters’. 

Besides, the Court heard matters concerning bail, anti-defection laws, the challenge to the three-year practice rule and student protests in Delhi, among others. 

Some More Questions on Bail 

On 26 July 2026, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana refused to interfere with the bail granted to Chaitanya Baghel by the Chhattisgarh High Court in the alleged Chhattisgarh liquor scam case. The Court noted that the top court should only set aside the grant of bail in exceptional cases. 

The Court’s decision was rooted in the principles laid down in Bihar Legal Support Society v Chief Justice of India (1986), where a Constitution Bench held that the Supreme Court was never meant to be a regular court of appeal against the orders of a High Court. The Court added that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 that allows the filing of a Special Leave Petition must be availed exceptionally, for preventing a grave miscarriage of justice. 

Similarly, questions of whether the Court can forbid a future bail plea spilled into July. On 25 June, the Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Arun Palli issued notice in Abbuhurera alias Munna v State of Gujarat—a Special Leave Petition that questions whether the right of an accused, who has been denied bail, to approach a competent court can be restricted for a period of time, even under changed circumstances such as failing health, prolonged custody or examination of a material witness. 

The Bench had directed the listing of the matter on 28 July. 

Numbers and Bench Engagement 

This year, the Court reserved judgements on two nine-judge Bench matters: The definition of ‘industry’ and the Sabarimala Reference. In July, the Supreme Court Observer (SCO) reviewed the number of words spoken by each judge on the Bench to see what it reveals about Bench engagement. 

Five out of nine-judges actively engaged with the counsels, asking questions, keeping time and offering short rebuttals in the industry matter. The number of judges actively participating from the Bench in the Sabarimala Reference dropped to four. While silence does not imply lack of engagement in the final decision making, it contributes significantly to the analysis of commentary from the Bench. 

Docket and Diversity 

At the start of July, the pendency numbers stood at 94,314. Disposal rates dropped in June and pendency increased by 1,885 cases as compared to May 2026. The drop in disposal of cases is attributable to the partial working days of the Court, which marks a rise in pendency every year around June. 

In July, SCO probed the question of the representation of women judges and found that only 14 per cent of the sitting judges in High Courts are women. However, the percentage of women on the Bench varies from one Court to another. 

While Courts like the Punjab and Haryana, Delhi, Karnataka and Bombay High Courts have a significantly higher percentage, we note that the proportionate representation of women judges in High Courts has remained stagnant in the last two years. 

From the High Courts 

The Calcutta High Court’s nod on the maintainability of the PIL challenging the Great Nicobar Project remained in conversation in July. In May, the Calcutta High Court upheld the maintainability of the petition filed by former IAS Officer Meena Gupta which contended that the project infringed the indigenous rights of two native communities—the Shompen and the Nicobarese. The petition alleges that the diversion of forest lands has taken place without the consent of the native population. 

Focus shifted back to the High Courts in the bulldozer demolition matters as well. On 16 July, the Bench of CJI Surya Kant, and Justices Bagchi and Mohana declined to hear a batch of contempt petitions that alleged the inaction of the State authorities in matters of arbitrary bulldozer demolitions. The petitioners claimed that demolitions in the states contradicted the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (2024). 

Remitting the pleas back to the High Courts, the Bench cautioned against the reading of judgements as statutes. 

All that the Top Court heard 

On 20 July, a Bench led by Justice P.S. Narasimha directed the Union to file affidavits regarding compliance under Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The provision mandates that private unaided and specified category schools reserve at least 25 per cent of their seats for children belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS). 

On 22 July, the Division Bench of Justices Narasimha and Alok Aradhe issued notice in a plea challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision recognising the merger of six Members of Parliaments from Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena with Eknath Sinde-led Shiv Sena. The petitioner challenges the Lok Sabha Speaker’s authority to recognise the merger. The matter shall be heard in the coming week. 

On 24 July, the Bench of CJI Surya Kant, and Justices Bagchi and Mohana proposed the constitution of special courts to hear criminal cases arising out of the Manipur ethnic violence. The Bench further extended the tenure of the Justice Gita Mittal Committee probing human rights violations in the state. 

On 28 July, the Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices A.G. Masih and K.V. Chandran heard review petitions against the 2025 judgement in All India Judges Association v Union of India which held that candidates seeking appointment as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) must mandatorily have three-year of experience as a practicing advocate or a law-clerk. 

Towards the end of July, the Court heard matters concerning police excesses on student protesters at Jantar Mantar, who were protesting against the NEET paper leak and other educational reforms. 

The Bench led by CJI Surya Kant, on 27 July, noted that the constitutional right to peaceful protests cannot be denied merely because demonstrations were taking place. The next day, the Court issued interim orders and found a prima facie case of an independent enquiry on police brutalities. In our analysis, we break down the interim order, examining whether it leaves a relief-accountability gap. 

SCO.LR in July 

In July, we published Volume 7 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) bringing you five important judgements from each week of the month. 

Read Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3 and Issue 4 here. SCO.LR comes with reader-friendly summaries, mind maps and more such features for easy research and citation.