In 2018, the court in a unanimous judgment decided not to order a court monitored investigation of the Union government's purchase of Rafale fighter aircraft. In 2019, it rejected to review its judgment.

The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Sabarimala Temple's custom of prohibiting women in their 'menstruating years' from entering.   Review petitions challenging the judgment have been filed. The Court will deliver a judgment on whether to admit them on 13 November.

The Supreme Court held that the need for judicial independence does not stand in contradiction with that for transparency.

A 5 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court is assessing whether Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 - pertaining to tribunals - was unconstitutionally enacted by the Lok Sabha.

The Court did not hold that the Union Government’s delay in considering the appointment of Justice Kureshi as Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court is monitoring steps taken by High Courts and State Governments to fill vacant judicial posts in the District and Subordinate Courts.

The court is framing guidelines and issuing directions to ensure the prompt delivery of justice for victims of child sexual abuse.

The Court overturned the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment that divided the title to the Babri Masjid / Ram Janmabhoomi site. It awarded the title to the deity, Shri Ram Virajman.

The Court will determine: Can a government land acquisition lapse, if the government fails to deposit compensation to the relevant land owner's account or court? Can a Bench invalidate a judgment of a prior Bench of the same strength?

A 2 Judge Bench of the supreme Court will decide whether practices prohibiting the entry of women into mosques violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and whether such a right can be enforced against non state actors in view of the judgement of the Constitution Bench in the Sabarimala Temple Entry case.  

This case will decide whether the right to free speech and expression, especially of those in public office, may be curtailed by the right dignity.

The Supreme Court will decide if the laws of Jammu and Kashmir relating to permanent residency place unconstitutional restrictions on fundamental rights.  Specifically, the Court will look at the validity of Article 35A of the Constitution of India, 1950 and Article 6 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1956.

The Supreme Court must decide whether to transfer to itself cases regarding mandatory Aadhaar-social media linking, currently pending before three High Courts.

The Court will monitor the inclusion and exclusion of individuals in the updated National Register for Citizens of Assam so as to ensure that the NRC as mandated by the Assam Accord of 15 August 1985 may be published.

The Supreme Court is assessing the constitutional validity of Parliament’s 2018 Amendment to the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The Court asks whether the amendment violates the principles of the presumption of innocence and fair and just procedure. The matter was partially heard in early 2019. On 25 September, the Court directed that the hearings be resumed once the judgment in the connected review petitions is pronounced. 

The Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the presidential orders that did away with Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status.   It will also rule on the constitutionality of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which bi-furcated the State into two Union Territories.

The Supreme Court is assessing the constitutional validity of the Forest Rights Act 2006.

Several writ petitions have challenged the constitutionality of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which introduces reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).

The Supreme Court decided not to hear an appeal on the question of whether the Chief Minister or the Lieutenant Governor is the administrative head of Puducherry. It suggested that the appellants approach the appropriate authority - the Division bench of the Madras High Court. 

The Court looked into whether reservations for SCs and STs should extend to promotions, by assessing its 2006 Nagaraj judgement.

How many poll booths should undergo Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slip matching? On 8th April, it ordered the Election Commission to increase the number of election booths that undergo the process.

A 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court chose not to interfere with an order passed by the Election Commission of India stalling the release of the PM Narendra Modi biopic.

The court will determine if the sexual harassment allegations against the Chief Justice of India are fabricated.

The Supreme Court is deciding whether the current electoral bonds scheme facilitates anonymous corporate funding to political parties and whether it was wrongly certified as a Finance Act.

The Supreme Court is monitoring 22 alleged "fake encounters" by the Gujarat Police between 2002 and 2006.

The Supreme Court quashed orders issued by the Central Government divesting the CBI Director, Mr. Alok Verma, of his responsibilities.

The Court decriminalised adultery, striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Supreme Court will review whether the Union can deport Rohingya Refugees, a Muslim minority from Myanmar, back to Myanmar, the country of their persecution.

The Court evaluated the arrests of five human rights activists under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) by the Maharashtra Police. The Police accused the activists of involvement in the Bhima Koregaon violence and sedition.

A 4:1 majority upheld the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016. While it ruled that the Act is constitutional, it struck down individual sections of the Act as unconstitutional.

A 5 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court decided whether the framing of criminal charges against a person would disqualify them from membership in a legislative body.

The Court will decide whether or not to ban the practice of female circumcision, or "khatna". In particular, the Court will evaluate circumcision as it is practiced in the Dawoodi Bohra community.

17th July 2018, the Court delivered its judgment, issuing guidelines to curb acts of cow vigilantism. The Court did not address the question of the constitutional validity of immunity provisions for cow vigilantes.

On 6th September 2018 a five-judge Bench unanimously struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, to the extent that it criminalised same-sex relations between consenting adults. LGBT individuals are now legally allowed to engage in consensual intercourse. The Court upheld provisions in Section 377 that criminalise non-consensual acts or sexual acts performed on animals.

The Court judged that the Chief Minister and not the Lieutenant Governor (LG) is the executive head of the National Capital Territory (NCT) government. Hence, the LG is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers on all matters where the Delhi Assembly has to the power to make laws. 

The Court held that there can be limited reliance placed on a Parliamentary Standing Committee Report during judicial proceedings.

  The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha rejected an impeachment motion against a judge despite the motion having support of the requisite number of MPs.

The Court assessed the allegation that Hadiya was deceived into marrying her husband Mr. Shafin Jahan and forcibly converted to Islam. The Court found that the allegation, which was made by her parents, was clearly false.

This case will decide if a Parsi woman loses her own religious identity after solemnizing her marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

On 11th September 2017, the Supreme Court increased the age of consent for sexual intercourse within marriages to 18. Prior to the ruling, sexual acts by a husband on his wife, where the wife was above 15 years of age, did not constitute rape for the purpose of criminal law. This lead to a legal anomally as the age of consent is 18 years, both in the Indian Penal Code and various special statutes enacted for children, notably POCSO.

This case concerns the privacy policy of WhatsApp which is an internet messaging service. The privacy policy permits WhatsApp to share data with Facebook and all its group companies for the purposes of commercial advertising and marketing. The privacy policy has been challenged as being violative of the right to privacy. 

The Court held that diversion of tax proceeds for restoring religious shrines destroyed even due to State's negligence violates the principles of Secularism. The court underlined a conception of Secularism based on Strict Separation principle.  Additionally, the court further hinted that compensation can be sought only for violation of Right to Life and not for other fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court held that a fundamental right to privacy is guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

A Constitution Bench has declared that the practice of instantaneous Triple Talaq is unconstitutional.

This case will decide the constitutional validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act, 1955, which is the result of the Assam Accord.

A 7-judge Constitution bench has held that unfettered re-promulgation of ordinances is not permissible by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court settled the question of governor's discretion and the 'scope' of judicial review over governor's functions.

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the criminal offence of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

The court held that the internal proceedings of legislative bodies can be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Court is hearing two separate challenges to the constitutional validity of the 2019 amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.   

The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the constitutional validity of Maharashtra’s Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018, which grants reservations to the Maratha community.

The court must decide whether the 2019 amendment to the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 imposes unreasonable and/or arbitrary conditions on persons appealing exclusion from the National Register of Citizens. 

A 5 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court will decide whether a legislator enjoys immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution from prosecution for accepting bribes to vote in Parliament or an Assembly.

The Supreme Court referred a PIL seeking collegium like system  for appointment of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs) to a constitution bench.

A Constitution Bench decided that the right to life with dignity under Article 21 includes a right to die with dignity.

In 1978, a 7 judge bench of the Supreme Court had given a wide interpretation to the word 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since a higher threshold of labour rights flow from the definition of an industry, a need for a revision of the definition of 'industry' has been expressed. The Supreme Court also raised doubts about the correctness of the 1978 decision. Accordingly, a 9 judge bench will be consituted to clarify the definition of the word 'industry'.

The 7-judge bench held that appealing to the ascriptive identities of any candidate and that of the voters constitutes a ‘corrupt practice’ under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The Supreme Court will decide the constitutional validity of the 2019 Aadhaar Ordinance and Regulations.

The Court will deliberate on the parameters for granting minority stautus to an educational institution under Article 30 of the Constitution. The case will determine whether Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) will be able to retain its status as a Minority Instution.

The Supreme Court will decide if sections 3 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 

The Court is hearing three writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.