Author: Anvita Dwivedi

The Supreme Court has intervened in the dispute over the identity of the All India Trinamool Congress, not by deciding which faction is entitled to the party’s name and reserved “Flowers & Grass” symbol, but by directing the Election Commission of India to indicate how quickly it can complete the substantive adjudication. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, hearing a challenge brought by Mamata Banerjee, on September 24, 2026 asked the Election Commission to work out a realistic timeline that would allow both sides a fair opportunity to present evidence…

The continuing constitutional debate over appointment of judges returned to the Supreme Court in an unexpected setting on September 23, 2026, when Justice Dipankar Datta used the hearing concerning appointments to the Election Commission of India to question the popular description of the Collegium system as one in which “judges appoint judges”. Justice Datta pointed instead to the substantial role retained by the Union executive at the final stages of judicial appointments and expressed concern that selective acceptance of Collegium recommendations could leave the judiciary functioning, in practical terms, as a “second fiddle” to the executive. At the same time,…

The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking sweeping directions to the Union Government and major social-media platforms to identify, block and remove online material alleged to promote communal disharmony, threaten national integrity or undermine the authority of the judiciary and constitutional institutions. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana dismissed the petition on September 23, 2026, while indicating that the petitioner could pursue the remedies available before the appropriate authorities. The proceedings are significant not because the Supreme Court has declared that objectionable or unlawful social-media…

The Supreme Court’s split verdict has now placed the constitutional validity of the Election Commissioners’ appointment framework before a larger Bench. The important point is that the Court has not yet decided whether the 2023 law is constitutionally valid. What has emerged is a sharp judicial disagreement over whether the existing selection mechanism sufficiently protects the independence and perceived neutrality of the Election Commission. The Supreme Court has referred the constitutional challenge to the law governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners to a larger Constitution Bench, after a two-Judge Bench delivered differing opinions on whether…

The Supreme Court has declined to revisit its earlier ruling that a private complainant cannot directly initiate prosecution before a Special Court for offences under the Companies Act, 2013 which fall within the statutory expression of offences “covered under Section 447”. At the same time, while dismissing the Union Government’s review petition, a three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi clarified an important procedural route that remains available to the Central Government: it can, by a general or special written order, authorise an officer other than the Director of the…

The Supreme Court’s latest intervention in Ayesha Jain v. Amity University, Noida & Ors. has moved beyond the immediate grievance of an individual student and opened a much wider constitutional and regulatory inquiry into how private universities are established, financed, administered and supervised in India. In an order dated September 17, 2026, a Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N.V. Anjaria made it clear that private universities cannot be permitted to function as profit-making institutions and directed the Union Government, States and Union Territories to obtain extensive financial, academic and administrative information from universities under their respective jurisdictions. The Supreme…

The Supreme Court on September 17, 2026 was informed that the Odisha Government has rejected the remission plea of Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh, who is serving a life sentence for the 1999 murder of Australian missionary Graham Stuart Staines and his two minor sons. A Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi took the State’s decision on record and permitted Singh to amend his pending writ petition so that the rejection order could be specifically challenged. The Court granted two weeks for filing the amendment and directed that the matter be listed after three weeks. The immediate…

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed an important principle at the intersection of limitation law, access to justice and the increasing digitisation of judicial processes: a litigant who makes a bona fide attempt to institute proceedings within the prescribed period cannot be deprived of a statutory remedy merely because the court or tribunal’s own electronic filing infrastructure prevents the filing from being completed. The ruling came in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Ms. Mamta Binani & Ors., where a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu set aside the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s dismissal of an insolvency appeal…

The Supreme Court has acquitted former Railway Protection Force officer Bharat Raj Meena in corruption proceedings arising from allegations that subordinate personnel collected illegal gratification on his behalf, holding that the mere fact that money changed hands between a complainant and an intermediary who invoked the name of a public servant cannot, without more, establish that the public servant accepted or obtained a bribe. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh emphasised that in a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the evidentiary chain cannot stop at the intermediary. The prosecution must reliably connect the alleged…

The Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling on the limits of recovery powers available to banks and Non-Banking Financial Companies, holding that a financier’s contractual right to repossess a hypothecated vehicle cannot be converted into an unrestricted licence to seize the asset by force, stealth or intimidation. A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, while deciding Hari Dutta Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., directed the Reserve Bank of India to take effective measures to ensure genuine compliance by banks and NBFCs with its long-standing directions governing recovery agents, repossession and fair treatment of…