Monthly Review: August 2026

August 2026 saw the Court focus on the Jantar Mantar protests throughout the month. Meanwhile, a nine-judge bench closed a question pending for over 40 years on the definition of “industry”. The Court also saw the retirement of Justice Sanjay Karol. 

Amidst these developments, the Court decided the matter concerning the eligibility requirement in the appointment of Civil Judges (Junior Division), heard challenges against the special intensive revision of electoral rolls and saw developments in the constitutionality of the data protection law and the transgender persons amendment. 

In this article, we revisit all of these developments that took place in August.

Protest, police power and Jantar Mantar

The Court’s intervention in the student protest cases grew through the month. Petitioners challenged the use of pellet guns, electric batons, lathis and tear gas. The petitioners contended that there were assaults on protesters and journalists, and molestation of women protesters.

During the hearings, the Court suggested that Article 142 could be used to quash FIRs involving students, while cases against persons accused of grave offences would continue separately. The Bench, led by CJI Surya Kant, said “undesirable elements” could not be treated as a separate category of criminals.

A separate petition sought the prohibition on the use of metallic pellets against civilians. This was in the backdrop of several pellet injuries reported during the Jantar Mantar protests. The Court directed the petitioners to reformulate their prayer to seek a protocol governing the use of metallic pellets, rather than a blanket prohibition. It directed treatment for injured students and preservation of records relating to the use of force.

On 18 August, the Court constituted a High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) to examine allegations of police excess, sexual violence and other incidents arising from the protests. The Court agreed to hear objections against the composition of the HPEC. Meanwhile, the Court asked the parties to allow the Committee to work.

The “industry” question finally moves

A nine-judge Bench delivered judgement on the reference concerning the definition of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Constitution Bench had heard arguments for three days over March 2026. Six judges upheld the maintainability of the reference. However, the bench was divided on the validity of the triple test laid down in Bangalore Water Supply v A. Rajappa (1978). Four judges, including CJI Surya Kant, proposed changes to part of the test and its accompanying guidelines. Four said the triple test should not be disturbed. A single judge, Justice P.S. Narasimha, declined to enter the merits of the matter. 

The judgement matrix captures the split across the five opinions, including the different approaches to the maintainability of the reference and the triple test. The Court ultimately left Bangalore Water Supply in place for disputes under the repealed 1947 Act. Pending cases will continue to be decided under that framework, while the meaning of “industry” under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 remains open. 

The protests did not stay in the courtroom

The Jantar Mantar proceedings reached NALSAR after 70 graduating students asked the university to reconsider inviting the CJI to its convocation. This was in response to reports claiming that CJI Surya Kant refused to watch videos of the protest. 380 students expressed solidarity with the graduating batch. The Bar Council of India then directed State Bar Councils not to enrol the 2026 batch, before withdrawing the direction within hours. The Supreme Court subsequently protected the students and faculty from punitive action. The CJI said, “It’s a dialogue between me and students.”

Our weekly newsletter tracks this episode. It raises another question: where is the record of what judges say outside court?

Issues of accountability

The Justice Yashwant Varma inquiry report reached Parliament on 12 August. The Report found all three Articles of Charge proved. It had examined nine witnesses and 221 exhibits. The Committee continued its statutory inquiry despite Justice Varma having resigned and withdrawn from the proceedings.

Towards the end of August, complaints emerged regarding malpractices and maladministration in the Rajasthan High Court. Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court, hailing from Rajasthan High Court, wrote to CJI Surya Kant about what he described as a “grim and disturbing scenario”. The three letters raised allegations of favouritism and malpractices by its Acting Chief Justice. The letters referred to concerns over administrative decisions, rostering and alleged misbehaviour.

Goodbye handbook, hello guidelines

In August, the Supreme Court released the Judgements and Gender: Sensitivity and Compassion in Writing Judgements. The publication looks at 125 trial court and High Court judgements, drawing on consultations with judicial officers, survivors, witnesses, lawyers, psychologists and academics. The publication flags phrases such as “helpless females” and “a woman of easy virtue”, along with references to “lost chastity” and “destroyed souls”. It asks judges to avoid terms such as “prosecutrix” and “outraged modesty”, and not to reproduce graphic descriptions of sexual violence when they are not necessary to decide a case.

The publication is meant to be used in judicial training and replaces the 2023 Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes. Unlike the 2023 Handbook, the latest publications focuses on sexual violence and does not examine gender stereotypes across areas such as family and workplace law. Our analysis pointed to its treatment of intersectionality and the fact that the publication is available only in English, despite the diversity of languages in which courts across India work.

Three years at the Bar, then one

A three-judge bench reconsidered its 2025 requirement that candidates for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts have three years’ practice at the Bar. The modified scheme, as per the majority of two judges, allows candidates covered by recruitment notifications issued between May 2025 and March 2027 to apply without prior experience. They will undergo one year of training at the State Judicial Academy followed by a year of law clerkship. After 31 March 2027, one year of active practice will be required. The majority held that the practice requirement could be met through institutional training and supervised work. Justice K.V. Chandran dissented.

Voters, data and identity cards

The West Bengal SIR proceedings turned to appeals against deletion and inclusion of voters. The Court was told that 38.1 lakh appeals had been filed before the tribunals. Around 7 lakh appeals were filed by voters whose names had been deleted. The Court sought a break-up of the pending appeals and details of the additional tribunals required.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 challenge brought the Right to Information Act into the dispute. The petitioners challenged that the law effectively curbs the right to information, as it removed the earlier protection for information whose disclosure could be justified in the public interest.

Petitioners sought the protection of the transgender persons identity cards issued under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 in a hearing challenging the 2026 amendment to the law. On 17 August, the Union told the Court that identity cards issued before the Amendment would continue to operate, subject to the outcome of the proceedings.

Environmental harm needs proof

In Vyakti Vikas Kendra India v Manoj Misra, the Supreme Court set aside the NGT’s finding that the 2016 World Culture Festival had damaged the Yamuna floodplain. The Court stressed the need to establish actual ecological harm and a causal connection before fixing liability. It directed the DDA to refund the Rs 5 crore deposited by the organiser, while leaving the DDA’s responsibility to rehabilitate the floodplain intact.

The docket finally comes down

July ended with 95,718 pending cases, after the Court instituted 7440 cases and disposed of 6303. The position improved in August. As on 1 September, pendency stood at 94,639 cases. The Court instituted 7424 cases and disposed of 7759, bringing the pending caseload down by 1079 cases from the end of July.

The three-day Special Lok Adalat saw 1712 cases settled or disposed of, including 48 through mediation. Of the 3285 cases listed, 1664 were settled or disposed of at the Lok Adalat itself. Rs 240.94 crore was disbursed. The exercise formed part of SAMADHAN SAMAROH, which began in April as a pre-settlement process.

Justice Sanjay Karol retires

Justice Karol retired on 22 August after three and a half years at the Supreme Court. He authored 273 judgements during his tenure. His work covered criminal law, motor vehicles, property, civil and family matters, among other areas. Check out our notable judgements and tenure in numbers. 

SCO.LR in August 

In August, we published Volume 8 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) bringing you five important judgements from each week of the month. 

Check out Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4 and Issue 5. SCO.LR comes with reader-friendly summaries, mind maps and more such features for easy research and citation.