Monthly Review: September 2026

Over 20 working days, September was easily one of the busiest months for the Supreme Court in 2026. The Supreme Court routinely heard and issued directions in matters concerning the student protests at Jantar Mantar, the challenge to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Delhi and West Bengal and the ethnic violence in Manipur. 

Questions arose for the Court’s consideration both inside and outside the courtroom. While some challenged the prolonged tenure of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman, others questioned the Collegium’s prolonged silence on the issues at the Rajasthan High Court. 

A seven-judge Constitution Bench heard arguments on the State’s power to impose tax on annual turnover and reserved judgement on the same. Further, a Division Bench pronounced a split verdict on the challenge to Appointment of Election Commissioners Act, 2023, leaving the ends loose on its constitutional validity. 

In the last week of September, the Collegium recommended elevation of three high court chief justices to the top court. 

Reference in the ECI Appointments Act, 2023

On 23 September, the Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma delivered a split opinion on whether the challenges to the 2023 Act should be referred to a larger bench. 

The petitioners challenged Sections 6 and 7 of the Act on the ground that it compromises the independence of Election Commission of India (ECI) by making the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs) heavily dependent on the executive. 

Justice Datta declined the need for a reference to a larger bench, noting that the challenge does not involve a substantial question of law. On the contrary, Justice Sharma noted that the question of there being an independent selector on the Selection Committee was being raised for the first time in the Supreme Court and hence, required an interpretation by the Constitution Bench. 

Despite their difference, after four days of hearings, the Bench opted for a unanimous Order, referring the case to a Constitution Bench. 

Read our pronouncement report, Order Summary and Matrix for a detailed breakdown of their decision. Our weekly newsletter on this issue explores previous instances of unanimous orders being passed despite a split verdict. 

Seven-Judge Bench hears challenge on tax imposition 

On 22 September, a seven-judge Bench heard the 27-year old reference in Arjun Floor Mills v State of Orissa—a matter in which the petitioners challenged imposition of an additional tax of 10 per cent on dealers with annual turnover between 10 lakhs to 1 crore and 15 per cent where the turnover exceeded 1 crore. 

The State of Orissa submitted that the change in tax regime since 2017 should be taken into account and that the reference has been rendered academic. After a single day of hearings, the Bench reserved judgement. 

Increase in the retirement age for district judges

On 1 September, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana directed seven states to amend their service rules to provide for the enhancement of Judge’s retirement age from 60 to 62. Officers who have retired on or after 31 March 2026 are allowed to opt to rejoin service, subject to the conditions of the Order. 

The decision is placed against the backdrop of All India Judges’ Association v Union of India (2002) where a three-judge Bench declined to accept the Shetty Commission’s recommendations for an increase. The 2026 Bench deemed the reform necessary to bridge the yawning gap between sanctioned and working strength. 

Spotlight on the Rajasthan High Court 

The controversy around the Acting Chief Justice at the Rajasthan High Court spilled over to September. Much after the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the transfer and elevation of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal as the permanent Chief Justice on 31 August, lawyers continued to abstain from work in Jodhpur until 6 September. They sought ACJ Sanjeev Prakash Sharma’s  removal from both judicial and administrative responsibilities. The High Court issued a modified roster which included no judicial sitting for the ACJ from 1 September to 5 September. 

Our analysis on the issue explores how the recommendation has affected functioning at the High Court and what it leaves unsaid. 

Challenge to the BCI Chairman’s tenure 

On 2 September, the Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Bagchi and Mohana heard petitioners challenging BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra’s repeated re-election for the last 12 years and his role as a permanent trustee of BCI’s PEARL-FIRST Trust. The petition sought a two-year tenure limit for the Chairperson which shall not be extended without statutory procedure. 

The Bench directed that Mishra serve as the “pro tem” chairperson until fresh elections are held. It passed a slew of directions to expedite elections at the State Bar Councils and the BCI. Read our case background for a detailed breakdown of the case. 

Other significant developments

On 1 September, a three-judge Bench led by CJI Surya Kant invoked Article 142 to quash FIRs registered against the 20 July NEET protestors at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. It barred registration of new FIRs but permitted registration of fresh FIRs against 2873 individuals who are alleged by the Delhi Police to have “serious criminal antecedents”. Commenting on the Order, Advocate Sarthak Gupta wrote that it “reads less like an adjudication and more like a settlement agreement that received a judicial stamp.” 

On 16 September, the Bench heard a separate petition seeking the reconstitution of the High-Power Enquiry Committee which was formed on 18 August to probe allegations of police excesses against the protestors. It dismissed the plea for reconstitution, deeming the petition “premature” and based on “conjecture and preconceived notions.”

On 17 September, the same Bench took note of status reports filed by Committees probing alleged human rights violations that occurred during the ethnic violence in Manipur. It reiterated the need to set up special courts to expedite trials and issued directions to safeguard persons displaced within the state. 

The Court also issued notice on a petition challenging the Delhi SIR. Petitioners alleged that SIR notices were mechanically issued to voters without sufficient detail. Additionally, the Court agreed to list a plea challenging alleged unilateral decision-making by the CEC Gyanesh Kumar. 

Three new Judges

On 28 September, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointment of three-judges to the Supreme Court: Justices Sunita Agarwal, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Aparesh Kumar Singh. 

Their elevation will increase the current sitting strength of the Court to 37. 

Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) in September 

In September, we published Volume 9 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) bringing you five important judgements from each week of the month. 

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

SCO.LR comes with reader-friendly summaries, mind maps and more such features for easy research and citation.