Monthly Review: May 2026

The themes that dominated April 2026 continued to shape the Supreme Court’s docket in May. The Supreme Court reserved judgement in the Sabarimala Reference after 16 days of arguments, delivered a verdict in petitions challenging the Special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar case and heard arguments challenging the appointment of Election Commissioners. Beyond these matters, the Court heard issues on judicial accountability, animal welfare, and criminal procedure. The month also saw developments in the Justice Yashwant Varma controversy.

The wait for the Sabrimala judgement begins

On 14 May, a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant reserved judgement in the Sabarimala Reference after 16 days of hearings spanning over 57 hours. The review began with a challenge to the 2018 Sabarimala verdict and expanded into a wider examination of the limits of judicial review in religious matters and the validity of the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine. 

Arguments revealed little consensus on an alternative to the ERP test, even as counsels on both sides criticised the doctrine’s inconsistencies. The Bench heard extensive submissions on constitutional morality, denominational rights under Article 26 and the role of courts in adjudicating questions of faith.

ECI’s SIR gets stamp of approval

On 27 May, the Court upheld the SIR in Bihar. It affirmed the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) power to conduct the SIR under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The judgment held that the accuracy and credibility of electoral rolls bolsters free and fair elections. Further, the Court stated that the ECI can assess citizenship to determine the eligibility of a voter.

The Court stated that Article 324 is a “reservoir of power,” which allows the ECI to undertake extraordinary verification exercises, as long as it is consistent with statutory law 

Who appoints the Election Commission? 

A Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma heard three days of arguments in petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The petitioners argued that the law diluted the principle of non-executive influence in ECI appointments as held in Anoop Baranwal v Union of India (2023). A five-judge Constitution Bench in Anoop Baranwal had recommended an interim committee of the Prime Minister (PM), the Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for ECI appointments. The 2023 Act replaced the CJI with a Union cabinet minister appointed by the PM.

Petitioners claimed that the new arrangement increased the possibility of executive dominance, while the Union sought a reference to a larger bench. 

Liberty question under UAPA referred to a larger bench

On 22 May, the Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question of how courts should balance the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 with the stringent bail restrictions contained in Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Protection) Act, 1967. The reference came after instances revealed an uneven application of the three-judge bench decision in Union of India v K.A. Najeeb (2021) by two-judge benches. K.A. Najeeb held that the stringent bail conditions would “melt down” when there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time.

A Bigger Court in motion

On 27 May, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointment of Chief Justices Sheel Nagu, Shree Chandrashekhar, Sanjeev Sachdeva and Arun Palli, and Senior Advocate V. Mohana The move came after a Union ordinance increased the sanction strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges. Justice Mohana is the second woman judge to be appointed directly from the Bar since 2018. The Union government cleared the names on 1 June and the judges were sworn in on 2 June. The Supreme Court Observer explores what these moves mean for gender representation in the collegium, pendency, and regional representation in the Supreme Court. 

Challenge to the Transgender Persons Amendment Act

On 4 May the Supreme Court issued notice on petitions challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, while declining interim relief. Petitioners argued that the amendment violated Articles 14, 19 and 21, and departed from the principle of self-identification recognised in NALSA v Union of India (2014) by introducing a medical-certification framework for recognising transgender persons and by placing restrictions on certain gender-affirming medical procedures. The Court directed that the matter be placed before a Division Bench of three-judges. 

More developments in the Justice Yashwant Varma Case

On 18 May, the statutory inquiry committee examining allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma submitted its report to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla. Justice Varma had resigned from office in April. This is the first time where proceedings continued despite the resignation of the judge in question.

Stray Dogs, Public Safety and Article 21

On 19 May the Supreme Court upheld the Animal Welfare Board of India’s framework on stray dog management and issued nationwide directions to strengthen sterilisation, vaccination and monitoring measures. The Court criticised the uneven implementation of the existing animal birth-control framework and held that Article 21 includes the right to access public spaces without fear of physical harm.

The judgement permitted euthanasia of rabid, incurably ill, or demonstrably dangerous dogs in accordance with law. It directed that no FIRs will be filed against officials carrying out dog-related operations. 

Sedition proceedings to continue, if accused permits

The Supreme Court clarified that proceedings involving sedition charges under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 may continue if the accused chooses to proceed. The clarification, made on 21 May, modifies the Court’s 2022 order, which had restricted the registration of new cases and proceedings until Section 124A’s constitutionality is decided. The Court clarified that its 2022 Order was intended to protect accused persons, not prevent them from pursuing trials, appeals or other proceedings. The clarification ensures that individuals awaiting trial can move their cases forward without any further delay.

However, the larger constitutional challenge to sedition remains unresolved before a larger Bench. Challenges against Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the provision alleged to have replaced Section 124A in a new form, are also pending before the Court.

Supreme Court Invalidates Degrading Bail Conditions

In an order passed on 4 May, the Supreme Court struck down a series of bail directions made by Courts in Odisha that required accused persons to clean police stations and other public premises as a condition of release. Describing the directions as degrading and unknown to law, the Bench noted their caste dimension, observing that many of the accused individuals were from Dalit and Adivasi communities. 

The Court declared all similarly worded bail conditions null and void and directed High Courts across the country to circulate the order to judicial officers..

SC Declines Pre-Counting Intervention in Bengal Poll Dispute

In a rare weekend sitting on 3 May, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the ECI’s decision to deploy Central Government and PSU employees in supervisory roles during vote counting for the West Bengal elections. The challenge, brought by the Trinamool Congress, argued that the Commission had departed from its own circular and failed to justify the exclusion of State government personnel. 

The Court, however, accepted the ECI’s assurance that its circular would be implemented in its “letter and spirit” and found no basis for intervention on the eve of counting.

Outside the Courtroom

Not all legal developments come dressed as case law. Here’s what else we covered on SCO.

We trace the NEET-UG paper leak and what it reveals about the NTA’s learnings from the 2024 paper leak case.

Activist Rachna Dhingra revisited the Bhopal movement through the lens of photojournalist Raghu Rai, who passed away on 26 April 2026. 

May Issues of SCO.LR

What were the 20 most important judgements delivered by the Supreme Court in May? Find out in Volume 5 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR). Read Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4 and Issue 1 (Vol. 6).

For those who don’t enjoy dense PDFs, we’ve also added reader-friendly summaries, mind maps, and HTML versions on the landing page.

(Charu Sabharwal is an intern at the Supreme Court Observer)