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 set of review petitions challenging the Court’s 2018 Aadhaar judgment. The judgment upheld the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 as constitutional.

The Court will decide if the three farm laws: Farmers (Empowerment & Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance & Farm Services Act, 2020, Farmers Produce Trade & Commerce (Promotion & Facilitation) Act, 2020 and Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 are constitutionally valid.

The Supreme Court will decide whether certain provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (‘Act’) violate Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

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

The Supreme Court will decide if Sections 3 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 ('MTP Act') violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

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 Supreme Court initiated suo moto criminal contempt proceedings against Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Twitter India, on the basis of two tweets posted by Bhushan on the social media platform.

The question before the Supreme Court is whether State legislation can give preferential treatment to specific castes within the Scheduled Castes.

N Ram, Prashant Bhushan, and Arun Shourie filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of s.2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, which describes criminal contempt as any matter which ‘scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court’.

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 is deciding whether the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.

The Supreme Court is reviewing its 2018 judgment, wherein it declared unconstitutional the Sabarimala Temple's practice of excluding women of a 'menstruating age'.   First, it will resolve certain overarching constitutional questions pertaining to the fundamental right to freedom of religion and its relation to other fundamental rights. 

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 clarified the correct interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. Among other things, it held that land acquisition proceedings cannot lapse merely because the State could not deposit compensation in a landowner's account.

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 upheld the constitutional validity of Parliament’s 2018 Amendment to the Prevention of Atrocities Act.

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

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

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

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

The Court monitored how the State Coordinator updated Assam's National Register of Citizens (NRC), so as to ensure that the NRC was published as mandated by the Assam Accord of 15 August 1985.

Several Public Interest Litigation (PILs) challenge the constitutional validity of polygamy, nikah halala and other related Muslim marriage practices.

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

The Supreme Court assessed 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 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 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.

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 is assessing the constitutional validity of the Forest Rights Act 2006.

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 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 Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Sabarimala Temple's custom of prohibiting women in their 'menstruating years' from entering.   Currently, review petitions challenging the judgment are pending.

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

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 held that a person cannot be disqualified from membership in a legislative body on the mere framing of criminal charges against them.

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.

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

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 the 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 Supreme Court will decide if uniform grounds of divorce, maintenance and alimony irrespective of religion or gender need to be framed.

The State of Kerala has challenged the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India.

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is entertaining a PIL seeking to reform how members of the Election Commission of India are appointed. 

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.

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 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 Court will decide if the anti-conversion laws passed by Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand are constitutionally valid.