Supreme Court Vacates 2019 Status Quo Order, Paves Way for 2,000+ Homes in Tamil Nadu, Citing Third-Party Rights

Supreme Court Landmark Judgment on Sex Work: Article 142, Consent, and Rights Framework

The Supreme Court in May 2026 delivered a landmark judgment on sex work, holding that consenting adult sex workers cannot be forcibly rescued and affirming their constitutional rights despite social disapproval. The judgment invokes Article 142 for legal force, spans nearly 300 pages, and departs from global anti-trafficking assumptions, but raises concerns about institutional implementation and caste discrimination.

Rajya Sabha Passes Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill 2026, Raising Judge Strength to 38

The Rajya Sabha has cleared the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising the apex court's sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India. The Bill replaces a May ordinance, but Opposition MPs questioned the ordinance route and highlighted the persistent diversity deficit in judicial appointments. This is a high-yield Polity topic for Prelims and Mains, with concrete data on SC/ST/OBC/minority/women representation and judiciary infrastructure.

Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of Delhi-NCR Sexual Assaults, Cites Article 21 and Nirbhaya Parallel

The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of recent sexual assault cases in Delhi-NCR, flagging lax patrolling and administrative failures that make public spaces 'zones of high risk'. The court invoked Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and drew a painful parallel to the 2012 Nirbhaya case, demanding accountability and a measurable response from authorities. This has major implications for law enforcement accountability, women's safety, and judicial oversight.

Madras HC Directs TN Chief Secretary to Form Panel on POCSO, Juvenile Justice Gaps

The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to form a committee of Home, Health, and Law Secretaries to address systemic gaps in implementing the POCSO and Juvenile Justice Acts. The court made key suggestions including gender-neutral application of POCSO, avoiding criminalizing consensual adolescent relationships, and establishing protocols for medical termination of pregnancy and child witness deposition rooms. This is crucial for UPSC aspirants as it touches upon child rights, judicial activism, and state governance.

Chhattisgarh HC Rules Shariyat Court Cannot Legally Dissolve Marriage; Triple Talaq Order Set Aside

Chhattisgarh High Court held that a Shariyat Court's declaration of triple talaq (Talaq-e-Hasan) has no legal authority. The judgment reinforces the supremacy of constitutional law over religious decrees, a crucial topic for UPSC mains on secularism and Uniform Civil Code.

Supreme Court Directs FSSAI to Set Timeline for FoPL Phase-II High Fat-Sugar-Salt Warning Labels

The Supreme Court has asked FSSAI to provide a scientifically justified and clearly defined timeline for the second phase of Front-of-Package Labelling (FoPL) that warns about high fat, sugar, or salt in packaged foods. The court warned that without a deadline, implementation could be indefinitely postponed and also flagged gaps in label design and school-level nutritional literacy. The next hearing is scheduled for September 10.

Madras High Court: Physical Features Cannot Determine Scheduled Caste Status

The Madras High Court has ruled that physical appearance, skin colour, height, and language cannot be used to determine Scheduled Caste status, setting aside a denial based on such 'look tests'. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that caste status is determined by birth, conversion, and community acceptance, not by subjective physical characteristics. It is a significant affirmation of constitutional safeguards against discrimination.

Supreme Court Rules NCSC Cannot Issue Binding Directions Under Article 338

The Supreme Court clarified that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has only recommendatory and advisory powers under Article 338, not adjudicatory powers. It cannot issue binding orders in service disputes. This ruling sets boundaries for constitutional commissions under Articles 338, 338A, and 338B.