The Central government has told a nine-judge Supreme Court bench that secular courts should not determine if religious practices are "superstitions," arguing this power belongs to the legislature.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asserted that courts lack the expertise to judge religious tenets and that Hinduism’s vast plurality makes defining "essential" practices difficult.

However, the Bench pushed back, stating that the judiciary can intervene if a practice violates "public order, morality, or health."

The judges noted that while they respect religious expertise, the Court’s duty is to ensure practices do not shock the "judicial conscience" or infringe upon fundamental constitutional values.

The Supreme Court has criticized the Central government for failing to regularly monitor and address racial discrimination against North East Indians.

The Bench noted that the government had ignored a court mandate to hold committee meetings every three months. Highlighting the persistence of racial slurs and the lack of high-level official representation at welfare meetings, the Court remarked that the Union was "taking things very lightly."

The Bench ordered that future meetings include fixed schedules and demanded greater sensitivity toward the community's struggles.

The case remains pending to ensure the government takes concrete steps toward protecting the rights of North East citizens living across India.

[Alana Golmei v. UOI]

The Central Government on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the framework of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), suggesting the jurisdiction has outlived its original purpose.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the "access deficit" which once justified PILs has been substantially addressed through legal aid mechanisms and e-filing.

He noted that many current PILs are motivated by hidden agendas. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant responded that the Court is already extremely cautious, applying strict parameters before entertaining such pleas.

The Bench observed that the judicial system has evolved significantly over the last two decades to filter out unsubstantiated litigation.

The Bombay High Court has ordered the demolition of an illegally installed Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj statue on Mormugao Port land, criticizing the Goa government for "gross inaction."

Despite the Port Authority's prior refusal to grant an NOC, the statue was unveiled with political backing.

The Court rejected the State's plea that the Port should use its own security, ruling that the Police and Magistrates are duty-bound to prevent criminal trespass and maintain law and order. 

Describing the State’s bystander role as "tacit collusion," the Bench directed authorities to provide armed protection for the demolition and restoration of the site.

[Mormugao Port Authority v. State of Goa & Ors.]

In the Sabarimala reference hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that "constitutional morality" is an uncertain and subjective standard that should not be used to review religious practices under Article 25.

He contended that the framers intended "morality" to reflect societal standards, rather than a judicial doctrine that varies between benches. Mehta also questioned "transformative constitutionalism," calling it a vague concept that risks overstepping judicial bounds.

While Justice BV Nagarathna acknowledged the subjectivity of these terms, she noted that morality is dynamic.

The hearing continues to deliberate whether judicial review can override long-standing religious traditions based on these evolving constitutional principles.

The Gauhati High Court quashed a notification that clubbed a newly created post with an ongoing recruitment process in the Mizoram Judicial Service.

The Court held that posts created after the issuance of an advertisement cannot be treated as “existing” or “anticipated” vacancies and must instead be classified as “future vacancies.”

It emphasised that including such posts mid-process would distort the recruitment framework and applicable quota calculations.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the ongoing selection be limited to the originally notified vacancy, reinforcing that recruitment must strictly follow the rules in force at the time of advertisement.

[Ms. Lalhriatpuii & Ors. v. The Gauhati High Court & Ors.]

The Supreme Court directed the sealing of 44 unauthorised properties in Meerut’s Central Market area while coming down heavily on a former divisional commissioner for defying its demolition orders.

The Court termed the officer’s decision to halt demolitions due to “public hue and cry” as an “absolute defiance” of judicial directions and stressed that public officials must uphold the rule of law.

It also expressed concern over schools and hospitals operating from illegal structures, questioning how such establishments obtained utilities and permissions. 

[Lokesh Kumar Khurana v. Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & other connected cases]

The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a case against Noor Ahmed Ajahri over comments alleging that BJP-run states target Muslims and have "trampled" the Constitution. 

Court ruled that at this preliminary stage, the allegations are sufficient to proceed with a trial, as the remarks could prima facie incite communal hostility.

The FIR, filed following a video about the killings of Atiq Ahmed, led to a chargesheet under Section 505(2) IPC for promoting enmity between communities.

The Court emphasized that a magistrate's duty is to ensure sufficient grounds for proceeding, leaving the determination of criminal intent to be settled during the trial process.

[Noor Ahmad Ajhari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.]

The Supreme Court has ruled that unreserved posts horizontally reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) are open to all candidates with disabilities, regardless of their vertical category (SC/ST/OBC).

The Bench held that "Unreserved" signifies a merit-based pool.

If a PwD candidate from a reserved category outscores a general-category PwD candidate, the more meritorious candidate must be appointed.

The Court emphasized that denying selection to a more qualified individual based solely on their social category is arbitrary and violates the right to equality, provided they have not availed themselves of specific relaxations for the UR post.

[West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. v. Dipendu Biswas & Ors.]

During the Sabarimala reference hearing, Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned the idea of treating women as “untouchable” based on menstruation.

She observed that there cannot be a concept of “three-day untouchability every month” and then no untouchability thereafter, raising doubts about applying Article 17 in this context.

Her remarks came after the Centre objected to the 2018 judgment’s view that restricting women’s entry amounted to untouchability.

The hearing is part of a larger constitutional review where the Supreme Court is examining the balance between religious practices and fundamental rights.

The Madras High Court issued notice to the Election Commission of India (ECI) on a plea seeking that only Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists be allowed to contest from Scheduled Caste (SC)-reserved constituencies.

The petitioner relied on the Constitution (SC) Order, 1950, which limits SC status to these religions, and argued that candidates who have converted should be disqualified.

The Court, however, raised concerns about how returning officers could verify a candidate’s religion beyond submitted certificates and declarations.

It refused to grant interim relief and sought responses from the ECI, listing the matter for further hearing.

[Arjunan Sampath v. The Chief Electoral Officer]

The Kerala High Court is hearing pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026.

During the hearing, the Court questioned whether the amended law could adversely affect individuals already undergoing hormone therapy.

The petitions argue that the amendment narrows the definition of “transgender person” and excludes those identifying based on self-perceived gender without medical intervention, leading to denial of legal recognition and access to healthcare and services.

The Court noted the presumption of constitutionality of laws and indicated that instead of staying the Act, individual relief may be considered.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy has reached a historic milestone in Indian politics by taking the oath as a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament from West Bengal.

A Rhodes Scholar with a D.Phil from Oxford and an LL.M. from Harvard, Dr. Guruswamy is widely recognized for her pivotal role in decriminalizing same-sex relationships in India.

Her election in 2026 marks her as the first openly queer MP at the national level.

Beyond her landmark litigation in the Section 377 and Right to Education cases, she has served as a global constitutional advisor to the UN and taught at premier institutions like Columbia and Yale Law Schools.

The Madras High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking a ban on IPL matches in Tamil Nadu during the election period.

The petitioner argued that hosting matches could violate the Model Code of Conduct and influence voters. However, the Court found no merit in the plea, observing that cricket matches are a form of entertainment and cannot be stopped on speculative grounds.

It emphasized that any actual violation of the Model Code would fall within the jurisdiction of the Election Commission, which is competent to take necessary action.

The Court ultimately remarked that people should be allowed to “enjoy the match.”

[T. Prabhakaran v. Chief Election Commissioner]