The Supreme Court directed the Union Government, states, and publicly funded institutions to disassociate from three academicians involved in drafting a controversial Class 8 NCERT chapter on “corruption in the judiciary.”

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V.M. Pancholi held that the authors had either misrepresented facts or lacked sufficient understanding of the judiciary, which could negatively influence impressionable students.

The Court also questioned how the chapter bypassed the prescribed review process of the National Syllabus and Teaching Learning Material Committee (NSTC).

It asked the Centre to form an expert committee to vet the revised chapter and ensure proper scrutiny before its inclusion in future textbooks.

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition by Advocate Ashok Pandey seeking ₹1 crore from the Union Government as fees for litigation he claimed to have filed to "save" former CJI Dipak Misra from impeachment.

A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant termed the plea "misconceived," sarcastically noting that such "social service" to the institution is priceless and cannot be quantified monetarily.

The petitioner challenged an Allahabad High Court order rejecting his claim for expenses.

The Court observed that since the advocate appeared in person, no professional fees were applicable, upholding the High Court's refusal to grant a certificate of appeal.

[Ashok Pandey v. UOI]

The Supreme Court stayed the death sentence of a man convicted for the 2024 rape and murder of a five-year-old girl in Bhopal.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria ordered a comprehensive psychological evaluation and a mitigation investigation report to assess the convict's mental condition and prison conduct.

The Court permitted a mitigation investigator to conduct confidential interviews with the convict. This follows a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling that classified the case as "rarest of rare" due to the extreme brutality of the offense.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing in sixteen weeks. 

[Atul Nihale v. State of Madhya Pradesh]

The Karnataka High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against three individuals accused of facilitating illegal sex determination leading to female foeticide.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that female foeticide is not merely a statutory offense but a moral blight and an affront to the Constitution.

The case involves agents who allegedly used coded marks to signal a radiologist to reveal the foetus's gender. The Court found prima facie evidence of complicity, noting that leniency in such matters risks emboldening gender discrimination under the guise of medical expertise.

The Court held that these allegations must be tested in trial.

[Sardamma & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka]

The Supreme Court expressed strong displeasure at the Railways for failing to clearly explain its budgetary allocations and safety priorities.

The Bench noted that affidavits filed by the Union were indecipherable and seemed to prioritize "the privileged few" over the common man.

The Court specifically flagged the disparity in travel insurance, which is available for online bookings but not for counter tickets, demanding that technology be used to bridge this gap.

Warning of stringent directions if clear data is not provided, the Court granted time for a comprehensive affidavit before the next hearing on April 1, 2026.

[UOI v. Radha Yadav]

The Rajasthan High Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Jaipur City Municipal Corporation’s failure to maintain city cleanliness, suggesting that fines be imposed on citizens who fail to ensure proper garbage disposal in their areas.

A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Shubha Mehta was hearing a petition alleging that despite recruiting 8,000 sanitation workers, very few are performing ground-level cleaning.

The Court directed the Corporation to provide ward-wise details of workers actually engaged in cleaning versus those assigned to office duties. 

The Court further ordered the installation of large dumping boxes with a strict daily cleaning schedule.

[Vimal Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan]

Senior Advocate Dr. Menaka Guruswamy has been elected to the Rajya Sabha on a ticket from the All India Trinamool Congress, becoming India’s first openly LGBTQ Member of Parliament.

A prominent constitutional lawyer and Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India, Guruswamy played a key role in the landmark case that led to the decriminalisation of homosexuality under Section 377.

Her election marks a historic milestone for LGBTQ representation in Indian politics. Along with her, other TMC candidates including Babul Supriyo, Rajeev Kumar and Koel Mallick were also elected to the Upper House.

The Supreme Court of India strongly cautioned against questioning the integrity of judicial officers supervising the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.

A bench led by Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said such allegations undermine public trust in the judiciary and would not be tolerated.

The Court noted that judicial officers were working extensively to verify voter eligibility and handle large numbers of claims and objections.

To address disputes arising from the revision process, the Court also suggested creating an appellate mechanism comprising former or sitting judges, with expenses to be borne by the Election Commission of India.

The Supreme Court permitted the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for 32-year-old Harish Rana, who has remained in a permanent vegetative state for over 12 years. 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan applied the 2018 Common Cause guidelines, marking the first time the Court has judicially authorized passive euthanasia.

The bench ruled that Clinically Administered Nutrition (CAN) constitutes medical treatment that can be withheld if there is no hope of recovery.

Following unanimous recommendations from primary and secondary medical boards, the Court directed AIIMS Delhi to admit Rana to its palliative care center to ensure the process is carried out with dignity.

[Harish Rana v. UOI]

The Supreme Court dismissed four frivolous public interest litigation petitions filed by a lawyer on diverse subjects, including alcohol regulation, land registration, and the "negative energy" of onions and garlic.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi criticized the casual approach to drafting under Article 32 of the Constitution, questioning if the petitions were "drafted at midnight." 

The Court described the pleas as vague, evasive, and a burden on judicial time.

While the bench refrained from imposing costs due to the petitioner’s status as an advocate, it issued a stern warning against filing such "baseless" litigations in the future.

[Sachin Gupta v. UOI & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court refused to restrain Tata Play from using the mark “Tata Play Astro Duniya” for its astrology channel.

The Court rejected an interim injunction plea by astrologer Rajeev Prakash Agarwal, ruling that "Astro Dunia" is descriptive rather than inherently distinctive. The Court noted that the combination of English and Hindi terms simply translates to "world of astrology," which describes the service provided.

Furthermore, the prominent display of the "TATA PLAY" house mark was deemed sufficient to prevent consumer confusion.

Since the plaintiff’s registration included a disclaimer on descriptive matters, he could not claim exclusive rights over the words.

[Rajeev Prakash Agarwal v. Tata Play Ltd & Ors.]

The Supreme Court ruled that a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) bench can lawfully consist of a majority of technical members.

Justices Sanjay Kumar and Vinod Chandran clarified that Section 418A of the Companies Act, 2013, only mandates the presence of at least one judicial member, not a judicial majority.

The Court rejected the minority shareholders' reliance on the Madras Bar Association verdict, noting that the prior ruling applied to the now-repealed 1956 Act.

Consequently, the Court upheld Bharti Telecom’s capital reduction scheme, confirming that a unanimous decision by a bench of one judicial and two technical members is valid.

[Pannalal Bansal v. Bharti Telecom & Ors]

The Supreme Court granted bail to Vishal Agarwal, father of the minor involved in the 2024 Pune Porsche crash, noting he had spent 22 months in custody.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that the seriousness of the evidence-tampering allegations, specifically conspiring to swap blood samples, cannot justify indefinitely curtailing personal liberty before conviction.

Justice Nagarathna remarked on the societal mindset of "getting the better of the law," but emphasized that bail should not be denied solely to send a message.

The Court directed Agarwal to cooperate with the trial and prohibited any contact with witnesses.

[Vishal Surendrakumar Agarwal v. The State of Maharashtra]

The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL regarding the PM CARES Fund after the petitioner, a Ludhiana-based hosiery trader, admitted to using "three or four AI tools" for drafting.

A bench led by CJI Surya Kant grew suspicious when the Class 12 graduate used complex jargon like "fiduciary risk of corporate donors" but could not explain it.

CJI Kant sarcastically remarked, "Very brave of you," and jokingly offered an English exam to verify authorship. The Court slammed the petition as "frivolous and scandalous," warning against proxy litigations.

Before dismissing, the CJI advised the trader to focus on his business, telling him to "sell more sweaters in Ludhiana."

[Rajnish Sidhu v. UOI]