SCO Explains

On 15 January 2026, the Supreme Court denied tax exemption to Tiger Global on a 2018 transaction amounting to 14,500 crore rupees. In this video we break down crucial facts of the case and key holdings of the Court. The complete analysis is now available on our website, but if you want timely updates on the Supreme Court, make sure to sign up for our weekly newsletter!

In this episode of SCO explains, we examine how the Court has drawn a principled line between protecting symbols from genuine insult and resisting the attempts to impose symbolic conformity.

On 2 December, the Supreme Court heard a habeas corpus petition alleging the disappearance of a family of 5 Rohingya persons. The petition challenged the deportation on grounds of procedure, not as a matter of sovereign policy.During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant observed that India cannot lay a red carpet for intruders and that we ought to focus on the poor among Indian citizens who lack certain privileges. This prompted a public letter. In this video, we summarise the events that followed.

The Supreme Court recently released a new Standard Operating Procedure that limits the length of written submissions and requires counsel to specify time required for oral arguments. In this video we draw from last week’s newsletter to explain what this procedure entails and why it’s likely to be opposed by arguing counsel.

We break down the Supreme Court's judgment in All India Judges Association v. Union of India. Delivered on 19 November by former CJI B.R. Gavai, the Court rejected all proposals for reservation .The Bench described the plea as driven more by “heartburn” than an enforceable legal right, noting that the material on record did not show any consistent imbalance or disadvantage to civil judges that could justify creating a separate class. It also noted the need for a uniform national model for determining seniority in higher judicial services, directing the adoption of a four-point annual roster for assigning seniority to all recruits within a year.

Since 1989, the All India Judges Association v. Union of India case has remained open before the Supreme Court under a continuing mandamus, allowing the Court to address issues concerning judicial services, especially recruitment and promotion. Many civil judges retire without ever reaching the rank of Principal District Judge, let alone being considered for elevation to the High Court.This was among the final Constitution Bench matters of former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai’s tenure. The judgement, delivered on 19 November 2025, settled key questions on how seniority in the District Judiciary should be determined. In this video, we summarise the key arguments in the case.

CJI Surya Kant takes charge of the Court facing a pendency crisis: over 90,000 pending cases. This backlog didn't happen suddenly. It defied past trends as monthly case filings (institutions) skyrocketed and disposals failed to keep pace, even with a full strength of judges. While CJI Surya Kant has acknowledged the pendency numbers, what is in store?

On 9 October, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that judicial officers with seven years of prior Bar experience are eligible for recruitment as District Judges. The Court directed all states and High Courts to amend service rules within three months. The 139-page Judgement held that Article 233 is a complete code and rejected the idea of a fixed quota for practising advocates. It clarified that eligibility will rest on a combined seven years of Bar and/or judicial experience, with a minimum age of 35 years.

The Court's decision to restore the Bhushan Steel takeover makes clear that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is a framework for revival, not destruction. We look at how the Review Bench acknowledged delays caused by external factors (like the ED and former promoters) and reaffirmed two core principles: the supremacy of the Committee of Creditors’ commercial wisdom and the narrowed locus of former promoters to stall the process

An unprecedented attack targeted CJI BR Gavai, when an advocate hurled a shoe at the Bench. While the Chief calls it a "forgotten chapter," we examine why the Contempt of Courts Act and legal precedent demand an institutional response, and what the lack of censure means for the Court's authority.

What is the nature of the Supreme Court's work and how do we make sense of the chaotic courtroom environment? What is the gap between judicial pronouncements and their real-world impact, and what is the role of a reporter in making complex legal intricacies accessible to the public?More answers to these questions in our episode! #SCO #SCObserver #SupremeCourtObserver #Judiciary #IndianJudiciary #SupremeCourtofIndia #LawNews #LegalUpdates #UPSC #

A Supreme Court decision from 2011 has become the central focus of the Vice Presidential elections in 2025. The reason: the Opposition's VP candidate was on the Supreme Court Bench that struck down the 'Salwa Judum' initiatives. Home Minister Amit Shah attacked the decision as having delayed the elimination of the "maoist" movement. We unpack the case and its ramifications!

Join us for an insightful conversation with Justice S. Muralidhar, Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India and former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, as he discusses his latest work as editor and curator of “(In)Complete Justice? The Supreme Court at 75.”In this interview hosted by Gauri Kashyap for the Supreme Court Observer (SCO), Justice Muralidhar reflects on 75 years of the Supreme Court, drawing on essays contributed by judges, lawyers, scholars, and researchers. The discussion covers:Why it is important to study and document the Court’s functioning.The decline of Constitution Benches and its implications.The challenge of multiplicity of opinions and readability of judgments.The Court’s growing pendency crisis and inconsistencies in case admissions.How digitisation and data transparency, through tools like the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), are reshaping access to information.His experience curating voices and perspectives on the Court’s journey so far.This conversation offers a unique window into the Supreme Court’s evolving role in Indian democracy, its strengths, and the challenges it faces ahead.

As CJI B.R. Gavai completes half of his six-month tenure as Chief Justice of India, we look at the administrative actions and judicial decisions that have defined his term so far. With a few months left in his tenure as the 52nd CJI, what legacy will he leave behind?

On July 31, a Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai gave the Telangana Speaker three months to decide on the disqualification petitions of 10 MLAs. By stipulating a timeline for the Speaker to rule on defection petitions, the Court went beyond the ‘Shiv Sena verdict’. Could it have gone further?

When judges speak in court, their words can mean more than just legal pronouncements. In the age of livestreaming and live-tweeting, oral remarks are often pulled from the courtroom and thrust into the news cycle.But how seriously should we take these off-the-cuff comments? Do they reveal a judge's true mind, or are they simply a tool to test legal arguments?In this video, we delve into the recent observations made by Supreme Court judges, from Justice Dipankar Datta's "true Indian" remark to Chief Justice B.R. Gavai's "class of parasites" comment. We explore what these statements mean for judicial propriety, the role of media scrutiny and the future of courtroom proceedings.This analysis is based on our weekend newsletter by Senior Associate Editor V. Venkatesan.Read the full article here: https://www.scobserver.in/journal/off-the-cuff/

The Supreme Court has introduced reservations for SC and ST staff in its own ranks—15% for SCs and 7.5% for STs. The move brings the Court in line with the very constitutional principles it has long upheld for others. We summarise everything you need to know

Earlier this week, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned from office, citing health concerns. Unlike the President’s office, there is no provision for an Acting Vice President in the Constitution. This raises some legal and procedural questions, especially since the VP’s office will remain vacant until a new one is elected. So what happens next? What does the law say? Why is a casual vacancy in the office of the VP treated differently from that of the President? We break down the constitutional considerations. Read the full story on scobserver.in!#SupremeCourtObserver #SCObserver #SCO #SupremeCourt #VicePresident #President #Constitution #IndianJudiciary #ConstitutionAssemblyDebates

The Supreme Court is back from its summer break—and it’s hit the ground running. In its first week back, the Court delivered over 50 judgments, tackling everything from corporate victimhood to marital privacy, child custody, death penalty sentencing, and inheritance rights for tribal women.This video breaks down the biggest legal developments from the first week after the Supreme Court’s summer break, including:🔹 A game-changing ruling on companies as victims in criminal law🔹 The admissibility of secretly recorded calls in matrimonial disputes🔹 A rare reversal in a custody case based on a child’s mental health🔹 Key death penalty commutations and what they reveal about judicial reasoning🔹 A strong affirmation of tribal women’s inheritance rights🔹 The ₹2.6 crore expense over tinted glass panels in the Court’s corridorsPlus, a milestone for us at Supreme Court Observer — we’ve published all SCO.LR Issues from January to July! That’s 130 key judgments, simplified for you.

On 10 July, the Supreme Court heard a batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. As the Court adjourns the issue until the end of this month, we look at how the institution has dealt with cases concerning the elections and the ECI's independence. Read our newsletter and find out more!

Can state governments tax DTH providers? Is the transmission of signals to air channels a service or entertainment for the purpose of taxation? What did the Supreme Court say and how does it contribute to a struggling DTH market?

Can you request a narco-test (popularly called the truth serum test) in your defence in a criminal case? If yes, what are the guidelines to be followed? Recently, in Amlesh Kumar v State of Bihar, the top court clarified that while it was not an “indefeasible” right, the accused could request it at an “appropriate stage” of trial.

A case that dominated the news cycle during the Court’s Summer Session (April-June) was the challenge to the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025. Petitioners sought an interim stay on the legislation while the Union resisted it. We summarise the key arguments in the case.

The Supreme Court's logo is back to its monochrome design after a the new Chief Justice rolled back the revised logo launched to celebrate 75 years of the Supreme Court. Is the move an indication of a broader shift favouring continuity and rootedness over reinvention and experimentation? Watch and find out!

TRIGGER WARNING: RAPERecently, the Supreme Court spared a person convicted under The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) from a 20-year jail sentence. Our latest video tell you what happened and explains the Court's decision.

Last month, Justice B.R. Gavai took oath as India's 52nd CJI. His first week was already packed with challenges: a Presidential reference, 82,000+ pending cases, and the looming Justice Varma controversy.What's in store for the Supreme Court? Dive into our latest podcast for the full story!

Chief Justice B.R. Gavai’s early days set the tone for a happening term. In our latest video, break down the major developments, challenges and what lies ahead for India's 52nd Chief Justice.

On 30 May, Justices N.V. Anjaria, Vijay Bishnoi and A.S. Chandurkar took oath as judges of the Supreme Court. They were recommended by the Collegium led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai on 26 May. The Union notified their appointments on 29 May.These appointments increase representation from the High Courts of Gujarat, Rajasthan and Bombay.Who are they? Find out

A professor is facing jail for a Facebook post that praised the army and criticised hate, in light of the Pahalgam Attack and Operation Sindoor.He was arrested for "endangering the country’s sovereignty, unity and integrity,” “promoting enmity between different groups, and “insulting the modesty of a woman.” The Supreme Court gave him interim bail—but restricted him from speaking about the topic and set up a Special Investigative Team (SIT) to "analyse his words."Why did the Court find the need to set up an SIT? What words did it find to be criminal? How important is it that we know what the Court's reasons are for taking such decisions?

How much criticism should the Court be able to withstand, before it begins to see it as speech that harms public perception on the dignity and authority of the Court?Through the comments made by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, we explore the Supreme Court's contempt jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has been hearing cases concerning pollution in Delhi for decades now. But how much has its intervention moved the needle?Supreme Court Observer's newsletter and months of Court reporting tells a story of inaction, and weak enforcement.

In Bachan Singh (1980), the Supreme Court introduced the ‘rarest of rare cases’ standard for awarding the death penalty. But how do courts assess mitigating factors during sentencing? In this video, we explore the uneven application of these factors, from Bachan Singh to the recent Ramesh A. Naika judgement, where the Supreme Court overturned a death sentence.

Did you know that Cornelia Sorabji from India became the first woman to pass the Civil Law examinations at Oxford? Despite passing the Bar, she was not allowed to plead before the Allahabad High Court as the profession was restricted to men at the time. Over a century later, the representation of women in the legal profession continues to be the exception and not the norm. We explore this issue in our latest video this International Woman’s Day month.

Can a conviction stand on a single testimony? The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that a prosecutrix's 'unshaken' testimony alone can secure a conviction, even without evidence of physical injury, if deemed wholly trustworthy. We summarise the key judgements where the Court has consistently upheld this principle, emphasising on credibility and confidence in the prosecutrix's statement. Watch now!

In our latest interview, Gautam Bhatia, author and advocate, sat down with Advay Vora, Assistant Editor, SCO to discuss his new book 'Indian Constitution: A Conversation with Power.' Bhatia spoke about the power dynamics between the Union and the states in a federal structure. He talked about how the Constitution as a whole has a centralising drift. He also shared some insights into his writing process and gave a little sneak peek about his upcoming work. Listen to the full interview now!

Supreme Court Observer in conversation with Justice Indira Banerjee, former Judge, Supreme Court of India. Justice Banerjee was at the Supreme Court between 2018 to 2022. In this interview she shares her views on women in the judiciary, challenges in clearing pendency and more.

On 28 February, a bench led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna reinstated two women civil judges whose employment was terminated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The judgement emphasised the need to create a sensitive work environment for women to thrive in the judiciary. We summarise the case issue here.

In our last newsletter, we examined the Supreme Court’s intervention in the Ranveer Allahbadia case. While a Division Bench granted the YouTuber interim relief, it strongly criticised his “disgusting” comments and barred him from hosting new shows.Our latest video breaks down how these restrictions function as 'prior restraint' on free speech and impact Allahbadia’s right to practice his profession. Our analysis looks into a case where a judgement was delivered not too long ago, and dealt with similar issues at hand.

On 27 January, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma delivered a split verdict in Ramesh Baghel v State of Chattisgarh. The operative order in the split verdict had the strange consequence of preferring the judgement of one judge. We explore the decision in this video.

28 January 2025 marks 75 years since the inauguration of the Supreme Court. Since its inception, the sanctioned strength of the Court has been modified six times to reach 34 to combat the Court’s increasing caseload. But, will more judges solve the problem? Listen now and find out.

In our latest episode of SCO Explains, we unpack the US Supreme Court's decision upholding a law banning TikTok. The ruling backed national security concerns raised by the outgoing Biden administration, citing the app's Chinese ownership. What does this mean for free speech and global tech platforms? And what’s next after the ban officially came into effect? Watch now

Today, Justice K. Vinod Chandran took the oath as a judge of the Supreme Court. The Collegium had recommended his name to bring back representation of the Kerala High Court in the SC after Justice C.T. Ravikumar's retirement earlier this month. However, six more retirements are scheduled this year, each bringing a diversity gap of its own. The year will also see three Chief Justices. We explore the representation conundrum at the Supreme Court.

In our latest video, we round up the top 10 Supreme Court judgements of 2024! From taxpayers’ interests to minority rights, citizenship and reservations to affirmative action, our list highlights cases that are set to leave a lasting impact. Watch now and let us know your thoughts on our picks!

What a year that was! Join us as we bid goodbye to a busy court year, and prepare for 2025. 2024 was marked by significant judgements, the retirement of a Chief Justice, and notable Constitution Bench activity. From a series of bail orders and a landmark reservation judgement to advancing child rights and fiscal federalism, the Court's impact was far-reaching. The Supreme Court Observer’s Annual Review series captures the year’s highlights—Top 10 judgements, thematic analyses and data-driven insights. As 2025 approaches with tens of thousands of pending cases, retirements and expected collegium activity, we remain committed to documenting the Court’s work. Until then, a happy new year to all!

Last week, we published our list of the Top 10 judgements of 2024. Narrowing them down wasn’t easy, so we used a guiding light: impact. Of course, impact is a tricky metric, especially in a system where enforcement data is scarce. Some picks were no-brainers, while others were debated. If you haven't already, read our list on our Analysis page! This time, we’re sharing an alternate list of five cases that didn’t make the Top 10 but still caught our eye. These are cases hand-picked by members of our team. The subject-matters of these judgements range from the right against climate change to the registration fee for enrolling lawyers and more. Watch our video now and tell us what you think! What were your favourite judgements from 2024? Let us know in the comments below!

In 1980, a majority of four out of five judges upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab. The sole dissenter was Justice P.N. Bhagwati, who noted the inherent arbitrariness and inhumanity of the death penalty in a detailed opinion. In the latest article as part of our special series commemorating 75 years of the Court, Shreya Rastogi and Neetika Vishwanath from Project 39A highlight the advances in empirical research on capital punishment since the decision in Bachan Singh. They argue that the reality today proves many of Justice Bhagwati's concerns to be true. Read it here: https://www.scobserver.in/75-years-of-sc/how-justice-bhagwatis-44-year-old-dissent-mirrors-the-state-of-death-penalty-in-india/

Author Salil Tripathi’s essay in our special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court of India talks about how the courts have approached book bans. Ostensibly, these bans are in favour of public interest, but more often, they serve the interests of powerful groups—political parties, ruling governments, multinational corporations. Salil writes that when cases make it to the Supreme Court, it has often upheld the author's freedom of expression. However, the real theatre of the book ban in India is often the bureaucratic office, the city street and the village square. Read Salil's article now on SCObserver.in! Have you read the previous stories we’ve put out as part of our SC@75 series? You’ll find in the set a compelling mix of history, pop culture and legal analysis.

Today, the Supreme Court hosts 34 judges. These judges have a vast library of precedents to rely on and time-honed processes to ensure smooth functioning. But during its formative years, the Court had just eight judges. Six judges were present in the Court’s inaugural session on 28 January 1950: Chief Justice Harilal Kania, and Justices S. Fazl Ali, Patanjali Shastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea, and S.R. Das. Justice N.C. Aiyar was appointed in September 1950. A year later, Justice Vivian Bose came on board to complete the original roster of eight. As part of SCO’s special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court, associate editor R. Sai Spandana, has written a potted history of the first eight judges of the top court. Read the essay now on scobserver.in.

As a part of our special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court we look at one of the Supreme Court’s earliest landmark decisions. Arudra Burra's article, first published in Seminar magazine, was a refreshing look at Romesh Thapar v State of Madras, 1950. By undertaking a deep study of the consequences of a judgement that was hailed for upholding the freedom of speech, Burra cautioned us about “constitutional progressivism” obscuring the real-world implications of the Court’s pronouncements. Read now!

On 10 November, former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud retired after a 8 year long tenure at the Supreme Court. During this time, he authored over 600 judgements and was a part of over 1200 benches. He has authored majority and concurring opinions in several landmark cases, including in a matter that recognised the right to privacy and one that decriminalised homosexuality. In this video, we curate a list of notable opinions wherein Justice Chandrachud has either arrived at some or all conclusions contradicting the majority, or arrived at the same conclusion as the majority but adopted different reasoning to get there.