The conversation on the conduct of judges dominated the legal landscape in 2025, with a series of incidents turning the glare on the judiciary: Allegations of cash being found at the official residence of then Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma; the failed impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav over his controversial speech; and controversies surrounding two former Chief Justices of India (CJIs) defending their judgements in post-retirement interviews.
From within the courtroom, the Supreme Court delivered significant decisions, reversing its earlier verdicts where the executive was the litigant. A two-judge bench’s order on timelines for the Governor and President in the legislative process were effectively undone through a Presidential reference. The top court also overturned its judgment banning retrospective environmental clearances.
The year also saw a series of arbitration and commercial rulings that clarified the limits of judicial power in private disputes.
So, as 2025 winds down, what does 2026 look like for India’s top court?
Judges under the glare
Impeachment
The Justice Varma case has moved from an internal judicial inquiry to the political arena. The judge has denied the allegations and is likely to challenge every move in Parliament. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Justice Varma’s petition challenging the action of Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to “unilaterally” constitute a committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act to investigate him. If Parliament follows through, 2026 would see the first impeachment of a judge of a constitutional court.
The other impeachment motion, against Justice Yadav, fell through, testing the limits of judicial accountability that politicians can enforce. The case showed that impeachment, the high constitutional bar for the removal of judges, is a process that is entirely politically negotiated.
Public scrutiny and live-streaming
The pandemic‑era experiment with virtual hearings has now settled into a hybrid system, making proceedings more accessible to lawyers and litigants across the country. But it has also lowered the barrier to observing and critiquing judges in real time.
Throwaway oral observations or courtroom humour routinely escaped into social media virality, often stripped of context and sometimes weaponised in political debates.
In an unfortunate incident, a lawyer attacked CJI Gavai in the courtroom, allegedly upset with his remarks in a particular case. The SC intervention in the management of stray dogs and post-retirement interviews of former CJIs D Y Chandrachud and B R Gavai defending their rulings opened up the institution to unprecedented scrutiny. Justice Chandrachud explained the court’s rationale in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case verdict, while Justice Gavai, just weeks after his retirement, defended his Aravalli verdict, in which he accepted the government’s 100-metre definition of the hills.
The coming year is likely to see continued institutional scrutiny and sharper transparency demands.
Collegium and internal dissent
The Collegium’s functioning in 2025 continued to attract criticism of non-transparency. But its recommendation of Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi for the Supreme Court also sparked questions from within. Justice B N Nagarathna, who is set to be the first woman CJI in 2027, penned a dissent note against Justice Pancholi’s recommendation, which was not included in the official collegium notes that were made public. Given that CJI Surya Kant has a tenure till February 2027, he will head the Collegium in 2026. With at least five SC judges demitting office in 2026, CJI Kant’s Collegium will have to make fresh appointments. His tenure will be shaped by the consensus he builds with his Collegium colleagues.
Matters before the Supreme Court in 2026
Religion
*In an interim order, the top court stayed two key provisions of the 2025 Waqf law. The court said that although it is not inclined to stay the entire law, it limited the powers of the district collector in determining the status of a waqf property and capped non-Muslim representation in Waqf Boards. A larger challenge to the contentious law — among other aspects, it makes the government the arbiter of whether a property is waqf property and includes non-Muslims in waqf boards — is likely to be heard in 2026.
*Challenge to the Places of Worship Act. The 1991 law froze the religious character of all places of worship except the then-disputed structure in Ayodhya as they stood on August 15, 1947.
*Challenge to the Karnataka hijab ban, which touches upon questions of autonomy and the state’s power to regulate freedoms.
*A review of the SC’s 2018 ruling allowing entry of women into Sabarimala, which will re-evaluate the “essential religious practice test”, a contentious doctrine developed by the court to protect only such religious practices that are essential and integral to the religion.
Citizens and the state
*In June, the Election Commission announced a “special intensive revision” of the electoral roll in Bihar ahead of polls. In the exercise, all existing electors who were not on the rolls in 2003 had to once again provide documentation proving their eligibility for voting. The EC provided a list of 11 documents that excluded the most commonly held ones — the voter ID and Aadhaar. The move was immediately challenged before the SC. The Bihar SIR was conducted under the watchful eyes of the SC, even as the court said that prima facie EC had the power to conduct such an exercise. The SC directed the EC to consider Aadhaar as the “12th document” to establish proof of identity, effectively raising the bar for the EC to exclude an individual from the voter rolls.
*As the nationwide Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls is implemented by the Election Commission, it is likely to be litigated in courts, especially by opposition-ruled states like West Bengal, which goes to the polls in mid-2026.
*Challenge to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. The Act seeks to grant citizenship to a class of migrants belonging to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian communities — but not Muslims — who entered India before December 31, 2014, from three Muslim-majority neighbouring countries: Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh.
*The SC is also hearing the bail plea of Umar Khalid and others accused in the 2020 Delhi riots. Khalid’s bail case, which has seen multiple judges hear the matter without passing orders, has become emblematic of how delays in the system impact the liberty of a citizen. Along with Khalid’s bail case, the SC will also consider a plea challenging the wide ambit of how Section 15 of the UAPA, which defines a terrorist act, is interpreted.
Free speech
*CJI Surya Kant’s stern oral observations and decisions in cases involving free speech indicate that such cases will continue to make headlines during his tenure. In a case involving former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma in 2022, while refusing to grant protection, Justice Kant had said that she was “single-handedly responsible for what is happening in the country.” While granting interim protection from arrest to podcaster-influencer Ranveer Allahbadia for his comments on a YouTube show, a bench headed by Justice Kant observed that “there is something that is dirty in his mind…”
Later, a bench he headed as CJI suggested that an autonomous body “free from influence” oversee social media platforms while ensuring protection of free speech. The bench also suggested using the Aadhaar number or the income tax PAN to verify the age of the user. In two other cases of hate speech in May, involving Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad and Madhya Pradesh minister Vijay Shah, Justice Kant directed the setting up of an SIT investigation to ascertain whether the FIRs must be quashed.
Questions of policy
*The government passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which banned online money games. The law blurs the decades-long distinction the court had made between games of skill and chance. The law was challenged before the High Courts of Delhi, Karnataka, and Madhya Pradesh. However, the SC transferred the cases to itself.
*The air pollution crisis in Delhi-NCR is also likely to remain a focus of the judiciary. The SC is holding monthly hearings and is playing a key role in policy determination on the issue.
Important new legislation
*The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill 2025 seeks to remove a central or state minister who is facing allegations of corruption or serious offences and has been detained for at least 30 days consecutively. The Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha and referred to a Joint Committee. The contentious part of the Bill is that it seeks to create varying yardsticks for the removal of a minister and a legislator under the law.
Currently, under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, legislators are disqualified from contesting elections or continuing in office upon conviction for certain criminal offences and being sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years. The proposed amendment, however, makes arrest and detention— the primary steps in a criminal investigation — the grounds for removal of ministers.
*Several provisions of the much-awaited Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, will be implemented in 2026. The DPDP Act, 2023, and the DPDP Rules, 2025, establish a framework for protecting digital personal data in India, outlining the rights of individuals (Data Principals) and the obligations of entities handling data (Data Fiduciaries). As the phased implementation of the law takes off, several facets of privacy and data protection could be litigated.
*The One Nation, One Election (ONOE) Bill, to hold simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and state and Union Territory Assemblies, has been widely discussed. Former Chief Justices of India Justice J S Khehar, Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Chandrachud and Justice UU Lalit have appeared before the Joint Committee of Parliament on the ONOE Bill. While Justices Khehar and Chandrachud are learnt to have said that the Bill does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, Justices Gogoi and Lalit are learnt to have raised the issue of possible legal challenges.
The year also saw a series of arbitration and commercial rulings that clarified the limits of judicial power in private disputes. (Illustration: Surajit Patro) 
Share
