2026 | Spring session review

Charged with high-stakes interventions, the Supreme Court’s spring session of 2026 witnessed substantive rulings on tax domains, privacy and the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. 

Key highlights included a nine-judge bench hearing on a 48-year old matter regarding the definition of “industry”, a mixed bag of bail directions in the 2020 Delhi Riots case and denial of tax exemption for Tiger Global. While the Chief Justice’s court came under scrutiny over textbooks bans, UGC regulations and a privacy policy rebuke, the session involved critical hearings on free education quota in private schools and guidelines for handling of social media speech matters and sexual offence trials. 

With several long-pending matters listed for final hearing, the Court is all geared up for the coming session.

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 Supreme Court worked a total of 51 days between 3 January and 31 March. In this period, it observed a week-long break for Holi, five local/religious holidays and Republic Day. 

Quorum: The Court started and concluded this session with a working strength of 33 judges and one vacancy.

Appointments and retirements: There have been no appointments or retirements in this entire session. 

Constitution bench decisions: None.

Constitution bench hearings: 

• • Definition of “Industry” → a nine-judge bench heard final arguments between 17-19 March. 

Pendency: 

• • 22 five-judge bench matters with 175 tagged matters 
  • 5 seven-judge bench matters with 34 tagged matters
  • 2 nine-judge bench matters with 46 tagged matters

Total pendency: 93,143

​(Data collected from the National Judicial Data Grid on 31 March 2026) 

Constitution Bench hearings

On 19 March 2026, a nine-judge bench reserved judgement in a 48-year-old question concerning the scope of “industry” defined underSection 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The hearings were listed for March before a nine-judge Bench by a Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant in February.. 

The matter—State of U.P. v Jai Bir Singh—was first referred to a larger bench by a five-judge Constitution Bench in May 2005. The Court will ultimately decide the correctness of Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage Board v R. Rajappa (1978), where a seven-judge Bench determined a wider scope of the definition. This resulted in the classification of non-traditional activities such as charities and educational institutions as industries.

While the question remained pending for 20 odd years after the reference, the Union government enacted the Industry Relations Code in 2020. This superseded the Industrials Disputes Act. The Code was later brought into force in 2025. Keeping the developments in mind, the nine-judge bench, on the first day of hearings, clarified that the challenge will be restricted only for the purpose of matters pending between 1978 and 2020. Therefore, the judgement of the nine-judge Bench will only be applicable on matters that were filed before the 2020 Code.

The Union and the States of Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab and Tamil Nadu favoured a restrictive reading of “industry”, while batting for a broader scope of “sovereign functions”, which may be excluded from being classified as “industry”. Trade unions and parties appearing for employees argued that the definition should be interpreted as beneficial legislation which secures employment rights, fair allowances and wages. . 

The Bench reserved judgement after the third day of hearings. Our matrix provides a snapshot of arguments put forth by the parties. 

Division Bench decisions

Bail granted for five, denied for Khalid and Imam

The session began with a high-stakes decision on the bail applications of the seven accused in the 2020 Delhi Riots conspiracy. The Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria granted bail to five of them, while rejecting the pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The Court held that they were key conspirators and stood on a “qualitatively different footing.” Further, the Bench held that prolonged incarceration and violation of Article 21 cannot operate as a “trump card” for seeking bail under special laws such as Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This was Khalid’s fifth attempt at securing bail. 

No tax exemption for Tiger Global

In 2018, one of India’s biggest offshore investors—Tiger Global—sealed a $1.6 billion deal to sell their shares in Flipkart to Walmart. A high-valued legal battle ensued after the Indian tax department claimed ₹967 crore as tax. Tiger Global argued that it is exempted from tax liability as per the India-Mauritius tax treaty. On 15 January 2026, A Bench of Justices Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan refused exemption to the investor. In the process, it narrowed the scope of the India–Mauritius tax treaty. Reopening questions on indirect transfers under tax treaties, it held that Tax Residency Certificates are not conclusive proof of entitlement to treaty benefits. 

SC to oversee enforcement of RTE quota

On 13 January, more than a month after reserving judgement, the Supreme Court issued directions to strengthen the implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The provision mandates free elementary education to children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups to the extent of 25 per cent seats in private, unaided schools. 

Article 21 in action 

In the past quarter, the Court pronounced significant decisions on the right to life, death, health and bodily autonomy.

• • 30 January → Recognising dignified access to menstrual hygiene as a facet of the right to life, the Court directed authorities to provide free sanitary napkins and separate toilet facilities for girl students in all schools. 
  • 6 February → The Court set a new standard by permitting termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limit of 24-weeks. 
  • 10 March → The Court directed the formulation of a no-fault compensation policy for individual deaths allegedly due to the Covid-19 vaccine. The Court refused to legally attribute any death to the vaccines.
  • 11 March → Applying the 2018 Euthanasia Guidelines, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan permitted the first case where medical treatment was withheld and withdrawn for 32-year old Harish Rana. Rana passed away on 24 March 2026 at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi.

On the labour front

The last week of January witnessed two significant decisions on the labour front; one cognizant of the informalised labour and the other dismissive. 

On 27 January, the Court clarified that the State may refer a dispute under the ID Act even when it is not preceded by a formal demand from the workers. It reiterated that while contract labour does not enjoy automatic absorption, workers are entitled to seek a declaration that a contract is nominal or sham.

On 29 January, the Court disposed of a PIL filed by 10 domestic workers unions who sought minimum wage as a facet of the right to life. It justified the dismissal on the ground that the matter pertained to the executive and legislative domains. 

An alleged custodial death goes unaddressed

Reiterating a contested distinction, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that confessions made to Customs officers—as opposed to police officers—are admissible as evidence. The decision brought a 40-year old smuggling case to a close, while remaining silent on the custodial death of a key witness. 

Guidelines for social media speech 

On 2 February, the Court laid down guidelines for police authorities in cases involving the freedom of speech. It dismissed the State of Telangana’s challenge to a September 2025 decision of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings against a political activist for his tweets against the Chief Minister.

Division Bench hearings

Controversial matters in Court

Media attention remained high on the Chief Justice’s court this session, as controversies erupted around judicial action on curriculum framing and the Court’s retreat from regulations on caste-based discrimination.

In January 2026, the Court imposed a stay on the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. The regulation had a separate clause for caste-based discrimination in educational institutions. The guidelines were brought into force after the Court, in January 2025, directed the UGC to formulate guidelines for prevention of caste-based discrimination on campus in the backdrop of instances of student suicides. The 2026 Regulations faced outrage from general category students who alleged that the Regulations will be misused to raise frivolous complaints. The Court stayed the provisions within two weeks of coming into force. 

In February, the Court took suo moto cognisance of the NCERT’s Class 8 Social Science segment on “Corruption in the Judiciary”. It first ordered a ban on circulation and further publication of the textbook. Two weeks later, it went a step further and blacklisted the three authors who drafted the chapter, directing all government authorities to refrain from employing the authors in any public funded capacity.

The Court made headlines for setting aside the Supreme Court’s 2023 Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes for being too “Harvard oriented”. However, in the same hearing, it directed drafting of guidelines for more sensitive and consistent adjudication in sexual-offence trials. 

Judgement reserved

After nearly 30 days of arguments, the Court reserved judgement on the challenge to Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. It then began hearing arguments on SIR in West Bengal after admitting a plea by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Five hearings have taken place since the start of February. On 24 March, the Court deferred administrative challenges in the West Bengal SIR to the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. 

In January, the Court reserved judgement on impeachment proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma. The proceedings stem from allegations of corruption after burnt currency notes were allegedly found at his official residence in Delhi.

SC slams WhatsApp and Meta’s privacy policy

On 3 February, a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant came down heavily on WhatsApp and Meta and made it clear that it expected an undertaking from the companies stating that they would not share user data. It was hearing their appeal against the joint penalty of Rs. 213 crores which was imposed on them in 2024 for anti-competitive practices in relation to its 2021 privacy policy. The companies subsequently withdrew their appeal. 

CAQM recommendations to combat Delhi air pollution

In January, the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) submitted a status report in Court on long term measures to combat the Delhi air pollution crisis. A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant issued directions for implementation of their recommendations without delay. Giving concerned stakeholders four weeks to submit their respective implementation plans, it clarified that it would not entertain any objections to the proposed measures. The Court began monitoring plans for a long term solution to Delhi’s pollution emergency in November 2025. 

Nuclear law under review

As the world awoke to the risk of atomic action and sudden Middle East hostilities, the Court heard a challenge to several provisions of India’s new nuclear law, the SHANTI Act, 2025. It is set to hear further arguments in April, as petitioners flag liability, compensation and insurance gaps. 

Long pending matters listed for final hearing

In 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench declared unconstitutional the practice prohibiting the entry of women in their “menstruating years” in the Sabarimala Temple. Subsequently, more than 50 review petitions were filed and in 2019. The Review Bench referred questions on “essential religious practices” to a larger bench. The reference was upheld by a nine-judge bench in 2020 but remained pending ever since. On 16 February, a Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Bagchi and Pancholi listed final hearings in the matter before a nine-judge bench. Arguments will commence from 7 April 2026.

A few days later, the Court heard a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the CAA after nearly two years. It directed for final arguments to take place between 5-7 May.

In this session, the Court also issued notice in matters regarding Enforcement Directorate as a juristic person, lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at Thirupparankundram Hill, the challenge to the IT Rules, 2023 and constitutionality of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. 

Constitutionality of Talaq-e-Hasan

 In 2022, Ghaziabad-based journalist Benazeer Heena moved the top court to challenge the constitutionality of Talaq-e-Hasan as violative of Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25. On 11 February, the Court referred her and her husband to mediation, while clarifying that the constitutional question will be decided separately.

Caste-based discrimination in prisons

On 18 February, the Court ordered the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) to submit a compliance report on Sukanya Shantha v Union of India (2024)—a decision which struck down rules perpetuating caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons.

Court news

The spring session witnessed a number of administrative reforms introduced by CJI Surya Kant who took oath as the 53rd Chief Justice in November 2025. Following a cap on the length of oral arguments and written submissions in December, this session the Court issued a circular on new modalities for letters seeking adjournment. Later in March, an important resolution was passed by the Collegium on transfer of High Court Chief Justices.