Monthly review: October 2026

October at the Supreme Court was shaped by the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the multiple lines of contestation that have sprung from it. A petition seeking the removal of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, a challenge to modifications to Form 6 and a review of the Court’s May 2026 decision on the Bihar SIR have joined its election docket. As protests broke out in New Delhi, the Court was called upon to rule on public transport restrictions and petitions alleging police violence and unlawful detention.

On other fronts, the Court sought to enforce restrictions on courtroom recording and emphasised the need for surveillance and police training to improve women’s safety in the national capital. Three new judges were sworn in while Justice S.K. Kaul’s recent memoir revived conversations on the Collegium system for judicial appointments.

We provide a concise report of developments.

Seven judges, 14 minutes

The month began with a seven-judge Constitution Bench hearing on legislative privileges and free speech in a 23-year old matter that arose from action against TheHindu for “distorted” reportage of Parliamentary proceedings. In less than 14 minutes, the matter was disposed of as infructuous. 

Barricades in Delhi and protestors at the Court

On 9 October 2026, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant ruled out complete closure of metro and railway services as New Delhi geared up for protests against the SIR and CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Two days later, a special Sunday bench refused immediate relief in a batch of contempt and habeas corpus petitions arising from the protests while noting that a prima facie case was made out. 

On 12 October, leaders of the I.N.D.I.A Bloc marched to the Court and submitted a memorandum-petition seeking resignation of the CEC and immediate suspension of the SIR. The previous night, CJI Surya Kant had declined to meet them as allegations of electoral discrepancy were pending before the Court. The sub-judice matters include challenges to the SIR which were decided in May 2026 and powers of the CEC. The Election Commission of India filed its response on 26 October. 

Our coverage examined the Court’s delayed reaction to time sensitive events, the accuracy of its invocation of the 6th Century Vaji Confederacy in the SIR decision, and the measure used to test the exercise of the ECI’s residual authority. 

Multiple petitions have been filed to challenge the legality of the ECI’s actions and the use of Form 6. AIMIM MP Assaduddin Owaisi has sought a review of the Supreme Court’s judgement on Bihar SIR. 

Contempt, criticism and transparency

The distinction between institutional criticism and threats to the administration of justice resurfaced on 15 October with the Supreme Court Bar Association’s petition against journalist Nikhil Wagle and Shiv sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut. The two had publicly criticised the CJI for refusing to meet INDIA bloc leaders. Wagle later issued a public apology.  

In a separate matter, a three-judge Bench led by the CJI directed the Union to frame guidelines to prevent commercial exploitation of courtroom recordings. The Court noted that clips continue to circulate on social media despite its interim prohibition on unauthorised dissemination. On 30 October, it added that the guidelines must provide for action against those who breach its restrictions. 

Confession alone cannot lead to prevent detention 

A Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu quashed a preventive detention order based on a confession made by the accused. The accused was arrested after multiple FIRs were filed against him with regard to the Sambhal Violence. After he was granted bail in all FIRs by the High Court, he was detained under the NSA on the sole basis of a confession which he alleged was extracted through torture. In the absence of denial from the Uttar Pradesh government, the Bench concluded that the confession was not voluntary and imposed a cost of 10 lakhs on the state. 

Legislators in court

On 6 October a joint parliamentary committee was scheduled to meet the CJI and other sitting judges for an informal discussion on the question of simultaneous elections. It was later cancelled after the Supreme Court Secretary General’s office informed the Lok Sabha Secretariat that it was not “expedient or desirable” to discuss an amendment that might later face judicial review.

On 14 October, Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar withdrew from an appeal challenging Tamil Nadu Revenue Minister K.A. Sengottaiyan’s election. While his recusal was recorded without reasons, Justice Kumar reportedly explained that his earlier courtroom remarks had been misrepresented as praise for the minister’s party. 

A special bench was convened during the Court’s Dussehra break to hear two matters concerning former CM Pinarayi Vijayan and members of the YSR Congress Party. Publication of the final list of candidates in Andhra Pradesh state elections was directed to be deferred at the petitioner’s request, and CM Vijayan was granted leave to appeal against registration of an FIR in the CMRL–Exalogic alleged bribery case.

Judicial appointments at the apex court

On 6 October, Justices Sunita Agarwal, D.K. Upadhyaya and A.K. Singh took oath as judges of the Supreme Court after their names were confirmed by the Union upon recommendation by the CJI Surya Kant-led Collegium. 

Discussion on the notoriously opaque system of judicial appointments gained traction towards the end of the month with former Justice S.K. Kaul’s recent memoir. From disagreements within the Bench to disagreements within the Collegium, his writing raised several critiques of the apex court and its relationship with the Union. 

Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

Every week, we compile five of the most important judgements of the Supreme Court to ensure thorough and comprehensive coverage of the institution. Each decision is summarised in a reader-friendly manner with assistive mind maps and other features to aid research and citation.

In October, we released Volume 10 of 2026, featuring decisions on everything from the determination of a “natural witness”, to nature of goods at time of taxation and fee revision in Higher Education Institutions.

Read Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3 and Issue 4 here.

(Smruti Ranjan interned at the Supreme Court Observer in October 2026)