Jump to: Weeks 3 & 4 | Week 2 | Week 1
Weeks 3 & 4 | 21–31 August, 2026
1. West Bengal SIR and Fresh Elections
The Trinamool Congress (TMC) told the Supreme Cour that more voters were deleted in the SIR than the margin by which seats were won, prompting the bench to ask whether fresh elections could follow. Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) requires proof that the result was materially affected, while Vashist Narain Sharma rejects speculation about how excluded voters would have voted. A piece could ask whether Article 329b leaves voters with an election-petition remedy that is practically too difficult to satisfy when the challenge is to the electoral roll itself, and what that means for Election Law.
2. The Definition of “Industry”
Only four of the nine judges backed the CJI’s reformulated test. Four affirmed Bangalore Water Supply outright, while Narasimha J reached the same result on the separate ground that the Industrial Disputes Act stands repealed. A piece could work out what a 489-page judgment across five opinions actually decides, whether there is anything like a narrowest-grounds rule for a #FracturedBench, and what a labour court is meant to apply under Labour Law when the majority does not produce a single clear test.
3. The Polluter Pays Principle
The Supreme Court set aside the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) Rs 5 crore levy for damage to the Yamuna floodplain, holding that there was no direct evidence that the 2016 festival caused it. But under the precautionary principle in Vellore Citizens, the burden lies on the actor to show that the activity is environmentally benign. A piece could ask whether demanding direct proof from the regulator effectively reverses that burden, and how far an appellate court should reweigh causation findings made by a Specialist Tribunal.
4. Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice Controversy
Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta has asked the CJI to intervene over allegations that Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma manipulated case listings and misused his administrative powers. The CJI has said the allegations are being examined through the institutional process and that Justice Sharma must be given an opportunity to respond. Justice Sharma has now opted out of regular judicial sittings from September 1 to 5, amid a lawyers’ strike demanding that he be divested of charge. A piece could ask what limits the Master Of Roster has when the roster itself is in dispute, and how Judicial Accountability can coexist with.
5. Disqualification Petitions Before the Speaker
Twenty rebel MPs are facing disqualification petitions before the Lok Sabha Speaker, and the TMC has asked the Supreme Court to direct him to decide them. In Kihoto Hollohan, the Court held that the Speaker acts as a tribunal and that courts ordinarily cannot interfere while the proceeding is pending. In Keisham Meghachandra Singh, the Court later said that judicial intervention can aid a prompt decision where petitions are kept pending, treating three months as a reasonable period. A piece could ask whether a timeline is judicial review in aid of the Speaker or impermissible interference with a pending Tenth Schedule proceeding, and what Rajendra Singh Rana adds when delay itself becomes the problem.
Week 2 | 8–14 August, 2026
1. SC Strength Increased to 38
The President has assented to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2026, taking the Supreme Court’s sanctioned strength from 34 to 38. It was certified a Money Bill under Article 110, so the Rajya Sabha could only return it, and it replaces an Article 123 ordinance issued in May. A piece could work through whether expenditure that is merely incidental satisfies the word “only” in Article 110(1), what judicial review is worth once the Speaker’s certificate is read with Article 122, and why a seven-judge bench has left the question unlisted since 2019.
2. Facial Recognition at Protests
The Supreme Court will hear an MP’s challenge to police use of facial recognition at the Jantar Mantar protests, tagged with pending petitions, on the ground that neither the Delhi Police standing orders nor the CrPC Identification Act authorises it. There is room to argue that the case fails at legality and never reaches Puttaswamy’s proportionality stage, that Article 19 is separately engaged because knowing one is being mapped deters attendance, and that hosting biometric data with private vendors defeats purpose limitation under the DPDP Act.
3. BCI Notification on Non-Enrollment of Protesting Law Students
The BCI told state bar councils not to enrol NALSAR’s entire 2026 graduating batch over a student campaign against the CJI’s convocation invitation, reversing itself hours later. A bench led by CJI Surya Kant has since issued notice and barred punitive action. This invites an analysis of the Council’s jurisdiction under the Advocates Act over persons not yet enrolled, of Article 14 arbitrariness in a collective bar imposed without notice, and of the chilling effect on Article 19.
4. Liability in Electrocution Cases
In Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation v. Rekha, the Supreme Court has held that electrocution claims attract strict liability rather than #absoluteliability, that Article 226 is the wrong forum where negligence is disputed, and that the Motor Vehicles Act multiplier cannot be imported. Whether MC Mehta survives outside industrial catastrophe, what is left of the Constitutional Tort route, and how compensation is to be measured when the Electricity Act supplies no method, are all open to examination.
5. Extent of Court Regulation and Interference
The Supreme Court told FSSAI that its February order on front-of-pack warning labels was a direction and not a suggestion, and offered to frame the labels itself after the regulator relayed industry opposition. Days earlier it declined to regulate AI and sent a doxing plea back to the Union. Writing on when a court will supply #delegatedlegislation the executive has withheld, and on whether regulatory capture justifies a lower threshold for intervening, may be warranted.
Week 1 | 1-7 August, 2026
1. The Right to Protest
The Supreme Court has clarified that states may close or withdraw FIRs against student protesters, and said it will lay down a protocol on the use of pellet guns, since no standing order currently authorises their use against civilian protesters. Days later, a Delhi HC judge orally remarked that protests should not be held at Jantar Mantar or anywhere in the capital, as the city cannot be put to ransom. Read together, these raise questions about the legal basis for withdrawing FIRs en masse, and whether the shrinking of designated protest sites is an indirect restriction on the right to protest under Article 19.
2. 498A Extension to Live-In Relationships
The Supreme Court has held that Section 498A of the IPC extends to live in relationships that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage”, provided an intent to marry is established. The judgment sits in tension with the rule that penal statutes are strictly construed, and the limits of purposive interpretation in criminal law could be worth exploring.
3. The Polluter Pays Principle
The Supreme Court set aside the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) Rs 5 crore levy for damage to the Yamuna floodplain, holding that there was no direct evidence that the 2016 festival caused it. But under the precautionary principle in Vellore Citizens, the burden lies on the actor to show that the activity is environmentally benign. A piece could ask whether demanding direct proof from the regulator effectively reverses that burden, and how far an appellate court should reweigh causation findings made by a Specialist Tribunal.
4. Reconsideration of the 2-Child Policy
The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on a challenge to the two-child norm disqualifying persons with more than two children from contesting panchayat elections in Maharashtra, indicating it may reconsider Javed v. State of Haryana (2003) or refer it to a larger bench. The Court observed that the country’s demographic profile has changed. This invites an analysis of what becomes of a precedent once its factual premise erodes, of the norm’s disproportionate burden on women, and of whether the State can use electoral eligibility as a coercive instrument to achieve a social policy goal.
5. SC Directions on Digital Arrest Scams
The Supreme Court has issued fresh directions in its suo moto proceedings on digital arrest scams, requiring the RBI to frame an SOP on mule accounts and asking an inter-departmental committee to examine a framework for shared liability and victim compensation. The Court is now supervising compliance through periodic status reports from the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre. While the directions address a real regulatory gap, they also involve the Court designing and monitoring an administrative programme through continuing mandamus, raising questions about how far judicial review can extend into rulemaking.
6. Constitutional Challenge to Sahyog Portal
Petitions by X Corp, Kunal Kamra and others challenging the Sahyog Portal have been consolidated before the Supreme Court. At issue is whether the Union can order intermediaries to remove content under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, or only under Section 69A, which requires written reasons, notice and committee review. The Karnataka HC had upheld the portal as creating no new power, and held Article 19 unavailable to a foreign intermediary. Whether this amounts to a parallel censorship regime bypassing Shreya Singhal, and whether an exemption clause can become a source of power, are both open to examination.