2026 | Summer session review

The summer session of the Supreme Court began with a nine-judge Constitution Bench hearing arguments in the Sabarimala Reference. The Court also delivered a notable decision upholding the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar, as it heard challenges concerning the independence of the ECI. 

Towards the end of May, the Court underwent an important institutional development when its sanctioned strength increased to 38 judges through an urgent Ordinance promulgated by President Droupadi Murmu. Subsequently, five new judges were appointed during the Partial Court Working Days. 

Our 2026 Summer session reviews the key developments and notable hearings that shaped the conversations in the past three months. 

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 40 full and 21 partial working days from April to June. In this period, there were three public holidays on Good Friday (3rd April), Buddha Purnima (1st May), and Eid-ul-Adha (27th May).

Quorum: The Court had 35 judges by the end of June. Justices Rajesh Bindal, Pankaj Mithal and J.K. Maheshwari retired during this period. Five new judges were appointed on 1 June after an Ordinance raised the sitting strength of the Court from 34 to 38 judges. 

Constitution bench decisions: None

Constitution bench hearings: Sabrimala Reference Hearing by a Nine Judge Bench

Pendency

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

Total pendency: 94,313

(Data collected from the National Judicial Data Grid on 30 June 2026)

Constitution Bench hearings

On 14 May 2026, a nine-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant reserved judgement in the Sabarimala Reference after 16 days of arguments. The Reference arose from a 2018 decision where a five-judge Constitution Bench in a 4:1 majority held that customs barring the entry of women into the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala were unconstitutional and discriminatory. The custom excluded women between the ages of 10 and 50. 

During arguments, the review petitioners challenging the 2018 decision argued against the abuse of the Court’s PIL jurisdiction, the validity of the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine, the alleged misinterpretation of the phrase “constitutional morality”, and the relationship between individual religious rights under Article 25 and community religious rights under Article 26. 

The respondents supporting temple entry agreed that the application of the ERP doctrine was flawed, arguing that entry of women can be permitted under Article 17, which abolishes untouchability. They contended that exclusionary practices cannot be confined to caste alone. Further, they argued that denominational religious rights cannot override individual religious freedom. 

Division Bench decisions

Supreme Court upholds SIR in Bihar

On 27 May, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi unanimously upheld the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The SIR, currently carried out and completed in many other states, began as a pilot project in Bihar ahead of its state assembly polls. It was originally challenged in the Supreme Court last year during the partial working days. 

The Supreme Court ruled that an exercise does not automatically become unconstitutional simply because it is carried out under a different procedure. It upheld the ECI’s authority to adopt its own method, stating that such powers are sourced from Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It held that the SIR furthered the constitutional mandate of free and fair elections by fulfilling the objective of creating “accurate, inclusive and legally valid” electoral rolls. It rejected the petitioners’ argument that the SIR led to mass exclusion of voters in the state. 

“Liberty” under Article 21 as bail in UAPA cases

On 22 May, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale referred to a larger bench the question of how liberty may act as a ground for bail in cases involving the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). 

The reference came after a coordinate bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v National Investigation Agency, Jammu (2026), expressed “serious reservations” on the Gulfisha Fatima v State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2026) judgement which denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The Bench in Gulfisha Fatima had held that prolonged incarceration does not automatically translate to bail and that Article 21 cannot operate as a “trump card”. Incidentally, Gulfisha Fatima was authored by Justice Kumar. 

The Bench in Andrabi observed that the Court was bound by a larger bench decision—Union of India v K.A. Najeeb—which held that prolonged incarceration without trial warrants constitutional intervention. It also relied on conviction data in UAPA cases to suggest that prolonged detention does not translate to convictions in most instances. 

Supreme Court intervenes with high stakes 

In two separate judgements, the Supreme Court upheld the state government’s powers to regulate online betting games that involve games of skill. It held that even a game of skill played with stakes on the outcome amounts to “betting” under Entry 34 of the State List, thereby upholding two laws from Karnataka and Tamil Nadu which banned such games. In a separate judgement, the Court upheld 28 percent GST retrospectively imposed on gaming companies. 

Three-month mandate for High Courts

In May 2026, the Supreme Court held that any delay in pronouncing a reasoned judgement causes irreparable loss to litigating parties. It held that High Courts should endeavour to pronounce reasoned judgements within three months of reserving their verdict. It issued comprehensive guidelines for pronouncing and uploading judgements, alongside remedies available for litigants in case of delay. The petitions arose from delays in the pronouncement of criminal appeals reserved by the Jharkhand High Court back in 2022.

Applicability of central disability laws on prison inmates

On 21 April, the Supreme Court held that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is fully applicable in custodial settings. It bound prison authorities to follow a disability-inclusive governance model, noting that incarceration cannot dilute the constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality under Articles 14 and 21. 

The Court relied on L. Muruganantham v State of Tamil Nadu (2025), which laid down a framework for ramps, accessible toilets and wheelchair-friendly spaces. It directed a high-powered committee constituted in Suhas Chakma v Union of India (2026) to monitor compliance by prison authorities across the country. 

M.C. Mehta matter rearranged into four suo moto petitions

On 11 March, the Supreme Court registered four suo moto cases and formally disposed of an M.C. Mehta petition—the oldest one pending since 1984. While the judgement was pronounced in March, it was only published in April. The case concerned the Taj Trapezium matter, filed after the Taj Mahal began to visibly turn yellow and black. The four suo moto petitions concern issues related to a vision document for the Taj Trapezium zone, the protection of trees and green cover in the zone, the regulation of industries and the protection and management of water bodies and sewage. 

The Court also redistributed M.C. Mehta’s environmental PIL from unauthorised heavy and noxious industries in the Union Territory of Delhi. Two suo moto petitions were registered— one focusing on the regulation of hazardous industries and the other on the protection of water resources and prevention of water pollution in the National Capital Region. 

A closure on the stray dogs issue 

In May 2026, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court issued fresh directions to states, union territories and authorities on the implementation of the Animal Birth Control Framework, and upheld the Animal Welfare Board of India’s Standard Operating Procedure. It observed that the implementation of the framework had remained sporadic, underfunded and uneven across jurisdictions since 2001. It added that the situation would not have reached “alarming proportions” had there been due diligence and foresight. It referred to thousands of dog bite incidents in Rajasthan, noting that the resulting harm was “unfathomable”. The Bench held that the right to liberty under Article 21 meant living without a constant apprehension of physical attacks. 

Notable hearings 

Who appoints the ECI? 

In May, a Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma began hearing arguments challenging the constitutionality of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners) Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The law was passed by Parliament in December 2023, months after a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court underscored that the ECI should be independent and recommended a selection committee comprising of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India. The impugned law replaces the CJI with a Union cabinet member nominated by the PM. The petitioners argued this mode of appointment compromises the independence of the ECI. 

The NEET Paper Leak 

Towards the end of May, the Supreme Court dealt with the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, weeks after the NTA cancelled the examination and rescheduled it for 22 June. Reminding the authorities that it had dealt with similar issues during the NEET-UG 2024 cycle, the Court emphasized that the paper leak should not repeat. The Court pulled up the Union government and asked it to explain how the exam would be conducted “year after year”. It directed that the authorities should “develop and retain institutional memory” to prevent a repetition of the 2024 and 2026 failures. 

The correct jurisdiction

In June 2026, a Partial Court Working Days bench of the Supreme Court dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s challenge against the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination. The Court held that Article 329 bars judicial intervention during the election process, and suggested that Natarajan can pursue her challenge through an election petition before a High Court. 

Court News

An increase in sitting strength

In May 2026, President Droupadi Murmu promulgated the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, which raised the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges. 

Shortly after, on 27 May, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointment of five new judges: Justices Sheel Nagu, Shree Chandrashekhar, Sanjeev Sachdeva, Arun Palli, V. Mohana. The recommended judges took oath on 2 June 2026. Among the appointees, Justice Mohana was directly elevated from the Bar. With her appointment, the Supreme Court has two women on the bench. 

Currently, there are three vacancies in the top court. 

(Syed Raiyyan, intern at the Supreme Court Observer, assisted with the research and writing of this article)