Monthly Review: April 2026

April 2026 was a month of high activity at the Supreme Court. For 10 days, nine judges were engaged with the Sabarimala reference while significant developments took place in other court halls. A contentious settlement made headlines in the financial press, hearings progressed on the revision of rolls in West Bengal, and critical decisions were passed on mitigation of death sentences.

As the question of pendency continues to loom over the Court, we took a closer look at the use of AI in listing matters, the nature of cases clogging the docket, and the time taken for judgements to be delivered. A new dataset on Collegium history revealed that nearly half of all SC judges since 1993 have participated in the inscrutable body.

On the administrative side, the resignation of Justice Yashwant Varma and the recusal of Justice K.V. Viswanathan reopened questions on judicial accountability.

Sabarimala: A balancing act

For the first nine days of the Sabarimala reference, parties in favour of review questioned the basis of ‘constitutional morality’ and the scope of judicial review with regard to essential religious practices. It was argued that the test was framed to address caste-based exclusion and not gender based exclusion.

On the 10th day, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising appeared on behalf of parties opposing the review and argued that no religious practice can be protected under Articles 25 or 26 if it is in violation of the fundamental right to equality.

Sandesara brothers: first among equals

On 13 April, a Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar compounded  the last criminal complaint pending against promoters of Sterling Biotech—a pharmaceutical group founded by the Sandesara brothers. While official accounts record an aggregate recovery (around ₹9,800 crore) nearly double the alleged fraud, media reports suggest a debt of over ₹15,000 crore. Read alongside recent media gag orders, Anil Ambani’s move for a similar resolution, and a 2025 decision, the case brings key principles of economic offence adjudication into question.

Revision of rolls in West Bengal

On 1 April the Court noted disposal of more than 47 lakh objections in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. Over the month, it heard five substantial hearings on large-scale voter exclusion and issued directions on the gherao of judicial officers in Malda and inclusion of voters post appeal. The petitioner’s arguments centred on pendency of appeals and exclusion of voters without show-cause notices.

A constitutional lacuna

On 9 April, Justice Varma—who was facing impeachment proceedings— tendered his resignation to the President with immediate effect. Subsequently, he wrote a letter of withdrawal to the statutory Inquiry Committee set up by Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla, which contained three specific evidentiary allegations. Previous resignations by Justices P.D. Dinakaran and Soumitra Sen similarly exposed the lack of statutory or constitutional provisions to ensure that inquiry continues after a judge vacates office.

A week prior, on 1 April, Justice Viswanathan recused himself from a matter after it came to his notice that he had previously appeared as counsel for the appellant, creating a conflict of interest. The unusual timing of the recusal—after judgement was reserved—brings to light the need for a more robust infrastructure of disclosure and conflict-screening at the top court.

Sensitive subjects in the spotlight

Recently, the central government proposed an amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The amendment mandates intermediary compliance with government guidelines and extends application of a “Code of Ethics” to all news and current affairs “content” created by users rather than only those created by “publishers”. Our newsletter explains how this moves away from principles laid down in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) by extending the blocking process without adequate procedural safeguards.

On 17th April, the ruling party’s push for 33 per cent women’s reservation in Parliament failed to secure a 2/3rd majority. While the country deliberated on women’s rights and the politics of delimitation, two notable orders of the Supreme Court introduced women’s reservation at the bar. Four Executive Committee posts have been earmarked for women in the Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association (SCAORA) and 30 percent reservation has been provided for women in State Bar Councils elections. In our newsletter, we asked  members of the Bar for their views on the recent orders.

On 18 April, the New York Times exposed confidential memos behind the controversial 2016 stay on the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. The decision has reignited debate on the ‘Shadow Docket’—a practice of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) wherein a full briefing and reasoned opinion are bypassed for emergency orders. We explored whether a comparison could be drawn with the powers of the Supreme Court of India to grant interim injunctions.

Number game: analysing court data

April 2026 closed with 92,823 cases pending in the Supreme Court. Data placed before the Lok Sabha revealed a total of 3525 PILs pending, with close to 700 pending for over ten years; the “continuing mandamus” being the key factor behind this accumulation. When CJI Surya Kant closed the original petitions in M.C. Mehta, pending since 1984, he called its continued listing an “embarrassment.” Yet, the reopening of issues under fresh numbers leaves the structural concern unresolved.

Once conceived as an extraordinary remedy, PILs have gradually transformed into an open-ended governance mechanism through the device of “continuing mandamus”. Our newsletter explores the journey of the PIL jurisprudence.

Meanwhile, an analysis of 60 cases, in which judgement was reserved in July 2025, indicate a median turnout of 27 days for the Court to deliver its final decision. While seven remain pending, 28 followed the procedural benchmark set out in the Code of Civil Procedure, and were pronounced within 30 days of being reserved. 39 were delivered in 60 days and 13 were disposed of within 61-150 days.

Of late, the Court has begun to explore use of AI in case listing and bench allocation. While hopes of improved efficiency are high, listing is not merely a matter of logistics. The difficulty emanates with prioritisation of matters, as the role of the Master of Roster is grounded in “control, discretion and accountability”. Concerns of data privacy and accountability have given rise to a growing demand for regulation of AI use.

Retirement of Justice Rajesh Bindal

15 April saw the retirement of Justice Rajesh Bindal. Elevated to the Supreme Court in 2023, he has authored 166 judgements and has been a part of 254 benches, maintaining a consistent authorship rate of 60 per cent over his four year tenure. Some of his most notable judgments include decisions on primacy of child welfare, entitlement to gratuity, payment of overtime wages, classification of private property and termination of employment.

Mapping the Collegium

The Second and Third Judges’ Case established the Collegium system; after rigorous interpretation and re-interpretation of Article 124. This system enables five senior-most Supreme Court judges to recommend appointments and transfers in the higher judiciary. Despite its constitutional significance, the system has long suffered a lack of transparency and has failed to maintain a public record of its membership, meetings or resolutions prior to the tenure of CJI Dipak Misra in 2017. However, this practice was substantially discontinued in the tenure of CJIs Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai.

The first publicly available record of Collegium membership from 1993-2025 reveals that 89 out of 192 Supreme Court judges— around 46 per cent—served in the Collegium over the last three decades.

Building a better justice system 

On 13 April, a three-judge bench stayed the death sentence of three persons convicted for the offences of rape and murder under the penal code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Leaving the conviction untouched, the Court reopened the matter of sentencing on two grounds—the Karnataka High Court’s loose engagement with mitigating factors, and its failure to consider a third form of punishment aside from ordinary life imprisonment and the death penalty.

On the same day, the Court issued notice in an SLP filed against denial of bail by the Bombay High Court. It refuted the High Court’s reasoning, and directed the Home Department to explain why the accused was hardly produced.

Highlights from the Courts and Constitutional Conference, 2026 

The 7th Edition of the Courts and Constitution Conference was organised by NALSAR University of Law, the Law and Other Things (LAOT) blog and the BML Munjal University on 28 and 29 March. As a media partner, the Supreme Court Observer participated and documented the five panels on; federalism and governors powers, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, and a memorial panel for late Prof. M.P. Singh, environmental law and judicial conduct and constitutional accountability.

Galanter’s Indian Legacy

On 14 April, Marc Galanter passed away in Wisconsin at the age of 95. A renowned scholar, Galanter made India his laboratory and developed influential ideas on law, society and caste that are frequently adopted by the Supreme Court and a network of Indian scholars. Self-described as “possibilitarian”, his approach continues to underpin key policy debates on equality, merit and the structure of the legal system.

SCO.LR in April

In April, we published Volume 4 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR), bringing you five important judgments from each week of the month.

Read Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3 and Issue 4 here. Reader friendly summaries can be accessed on our landing page with mind maps and HTML versions of each judgement to enhance accessibility and user experience.

(Shreshtha Bhardwaj is an intern at the Supreme Court Observer)