2026 | Monsoon session review

Despite the Supreme Court being on partial working days at the start of the Monsoon Session, it began with a slew of new appointments, constitution of special benches for legacy matters, and the pronouncement of a nine-judge Bench decision on the definition of “industry”.

Our review covers key developments of the past three months, between 1 June and 30 September 2026.

Note: The Supreme Court does not have an official session calendar. For analytical clarity, we at the Supreme Court Observer have divided it into four sessions: Spring (January to March), Summer (April to June), Monsoon (July to September), and Winter (October to December).

Quick facts

Working days: The session began with 30 Partial Working Days between 1 June to 12 July. After this, the Court worked for a total of 54 days until 30 September.

Quorum: Following a set of five appointments on 2 June, the working strength of the Court was 34 judges.

Appointments and retirements

In May 2026, the Union increased the strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges. The following month, Justices Sheel Nagu, Shree Chandrashekhar, Sanjeev Sachdeva, Arun Palli and V. Mohana were appointed to the top court. Justice Mohana’s appointment marks the second time a woman advocate has been appointed directly from the Bar since Justice Indu Malhotra in 2018. She is also the first woman to be recommended by the Collegium since August 2021.

The Court saw three retirements this session: Justices Pankaj Mittal (16 June), J.K. Maheshwari (18 June) and Sanjay Karol (22 August). Justice Mittal authored an average of 38 judgements per year, including notable decisions on Waqf property and sub-classification of scheduled castes. Principles of interpretation and jurisdiction have been addressed considerably by Justice Maheshwari who averaged 43 judgements per year. Justice Karol’s notable decisions include several on gender equality and the death penalty, and he has authored an annual average of 78 judgements.

Just as the session drew to a close, on 28 September, the Collegium recommended elevation of three more judges: Justice Sunita Agarwal, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Aparesh Kumar Singh. With their appointments, the Court will have 37 sitting judges for the first time in Supreme Court history.

Pendency 

The session began with over 92,000 pending cases at the end of May. This rose to 94,000 in June and over 95,700 in July before falling back to 94,600 in August. The session closed with 94,961 pending cases as per data collected from the Supreme Court of India’s Justice Clock on 30 September.

Notably, 1712 cases were settled or disposed of during a three-day Special Lok Adalat  which was organised as part of the SAMADHAN SAMAROH initiative.

By the end of the quarter, the Constitution Bench pendency stood at 22 for five-judge bench, five for seven-judge bench and two for nine-judge benches.

Constitution bench decisions

On 20 August, the nine-judge Constitution Bench pronounced its judgement on the definition of “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In a 6:3 majority, the Bench upheld the maintainability of the reference while differing 4:4 on the need to alter the triple test laid down in 1978 as Justice P.S. Narasimha refused to engage with the matter on merits.

Although the decision only pertains to pending industrial disputes, Justice B.V. Nagarathna opined that interpretation of the 1947 Act may have a bearing on the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.

Constitution bench hearings

On 22 September, a seven-judge Bench heard the batch of petitions challenging the power of state legislatures to make laws imposing a surcharge on sales tax based on annual turnover. The Bench reserved its judgement on the 27-year old reference which arose from conflicting decisions on determination of the nature of taxes.

Another seven-judge bench matter is scheduled to begin hearing challenges to the immunity of law makers from 6 October.

There have been no developments with regard to five-judge bench matters so far.

Division bench decisions and hearings 

Elections

A three-judge Bench led by CJI Surya Kant continued to engage with challenges to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, even as it entered phase III across the country. In August, it directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to disclose details of all pending appeals against deletion and inclusion of voters in West Bengal. In September, it issued notice on a plea challenging the lack of clarity for voters who were served “logical discrepancy” notices in Delhi.

Another matter concerning the ECI was the challenge to ECI Appointments Act, 2023 which alleged executive dominance in the committee responsible for selection of election commissioners. Having reserved their decision in July, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma authored a split opinion on the need for a reference but preferred a unanimous order to prevent undue delay.

The right to education and the right to protest for it

Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE) mandates a 25 per cent quota in all unaided, private schools for children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups in the neighbourhood. Earlier this year, the Court issued a slew of directions for the implementation of the provision. On 20 July, it directed the Union to file an interim affidavit on the steps taken so far and on 29 September, it pulled up the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights for its “unsatisfactory” response.

Meanwhile, a three-judge Bench led by CJI Surya Kant heard petitions on alleged police brutality against the student protestors at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. It restrained coercive action against students, and constituted a High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) to conduct an independent inquiry. In September, it quashed all FIRs against the protestors and permitted registration of fresh cases against 2873 persons with alleged criminal antecedents. The Bench then heard petitions seeking reconstitution of the HPEC and brought the Committee under its direct supervision while holding that objections raised by petitioners were premature.

Parallely, controversy ensued over CJI Surya Kant’s attendance at the convocation of students graduating from NALSAR University of Hyderabad. When students opposed his presence due to his reported remarks on the Jantar Mantar protests, the Bar Council of India issued a notice barring their enrolment and withdrew it within hours.

Environment 

On 29 July, the Court delivered the third and final decision in Vanashakti v Union of India, re-affirming that prior environmental clearance remains a rule while upholding provisions that empower the Union to carve exceptions.

A day later, the Court turned to Himachal Pradesh, where the unregulated tourism industry was previously flagged as a cause for concern. Concluding that the state could not be relied upon to provide an account of its own ecology, a two-judge Bench passed the inquiry to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).

Regarding damage to the Yamuna river floodplains following the World Culture Festival in 2017, a Division Bench insisted on proof of causation and set aside the National Green Tribunal’s finding. ₹5 crores deposited by the organiser, Art of Living Foundation, was directed to be returned.

On 8 September, the Court switched out the rules for granting mining leases. It permitted the state of Karnataka to auction and lease composite land blocks including “virgin forest land” to mining companies. Use of the land will remain contingent on subsequent approval.

Revised terms for the district judiciary and inconsistent engagement on disability

Last year the Court mandated three years of practice at the Bar for law graduates to appear for the district judiciary examinations. In August, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court modified this mandate, scaling the requirement down to a year.

On 1 September, another three-judge Bench directed an increase in the retirement age of district judges from 60 to 62.

Disability scholars point out that the Court, in its decision, failed to engage with the plea for reasonable accommodation that was raised by the petitioners. Its inconsistency with disability matters is evident in another recent decision on motor accident claims as well.

Transgender Persons Amendment Act, 2026

On 15 June, a three-judge Bench issued notice on the Union’s transfer petition seeking consolidation of all High Court challenges to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. Earlier in May, it had declined an interim stay on the Act.

In August, petitioners sought protection for existing transgender identity cards and submitted that the national portal for obtaining such cards was inoperative after the Amendment. While the Union promised interim validity of the cards, it is yet to submit its response to challenges against the Amendment.

Court news

Two other developments received significant attention from members of the legal community and the media this session: the Court’s handbook on gender and Justice Sandeep Mehta’s leaked letters to the Collegium.

Earlier this year, CJI Surya Kant criticised the Court’s 2023 handbook on gender for “sermonising” High Court judges and proposed training at the National Judicial Academy as an alternative. On 3 August, the Court released a revised handbook which, although it employs an empirical approach, remains open to debate on accuracy and accessibility.

August drew to a close with much ado over three letters by Justice Mehta which reported allegations of malpractice and favouritism by Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma of the Rajasthan High Court. Within days, the Collegium passed a resolution to transfer and elevate Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal as the permanent Chief Justice.

Administrative developments

CJI Surya Kant notified a fresh roster this session, constituting four special benches to hear and dispose of “legacy” cases that have been pending for a long time. While the National Judicial Data Grid dates the oldest civil case to 1986 and the oldest criminal one to 1991, it is unclear how the Court has shortlisted matters for hearing.

In June, the Court altered terms of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections, determining voter eligibility, tenure of office-bearers and campaign rules.

On the Collegium front, this session’s resolutions on elevation of high court chief justices have largely failed to provide time for familiarisation as envisioned in the Court’s February 2026 policy. A need to synchronise the two independent procedures for transfer and elevation might be at the root of the problem.

SCO.LR  

Every week, we identify the most significant decisions of the Supreme Court and compile them in our Supreme Court Observer Law Reports. Each judgement is uploaded in HTML format, with assistive mind maps and concise summaries.

Find all judgements from the Monsoon session here—June, July, August and September.

Check out our SCO.LR page to access all our issues from January 2025!