Judges, Power and Public Scrutiny: What 2026 Could Hold for the Supreme Court

As 2025 draws to a close, the Supreme Court of India finds itself at the centre of an unusually intense public and political spotlight. Allegations against sitting judges, impeachment attempts, internal dissent within the Collegium, and a string of consequential constitutional rulings have collectively made judicial conduct and accountability a dominant theme of the year. With major cases lined up and institutional questions unresolved, 2026 is poised to be a defining year for India’s top court.

Why judges themselves became the story in 2025

The most striking feature of the past year was how questions about judges moved beyond courtrooms into public discourse. Allegations of cash being found at the official residence of former Delhi High Court judge “Yashwant Varma” triggered an internal inquiry that has now spilled into Parliament.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Justice Varma’s challenge to the Lok Sabha Speaker “Om Birla” for constituting an inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act. If Parliament proceeds with impeachment, 2026 could witness the first successful removal of a constitutional court judge — an event with profound implications for judicial accountability.

In contrast, the failed impeachment attempt against Allahabad High Court judge “Shekhar Yadav” underscored a parallel truth: impeachment remains a deeply political process, dependent as much on parliamentary arithmetic as on allegations of misconduct.

Live-streaming, virality and the new courtroom gaze

The continuation of hybrid hearings has transformed access to justice — but also scrutiny of judges. Oral remarks, courtroom humour and off-the-cuff observations increasingly circulate on social media, often stripped of legal context and amplified through partisan lenses.

The year saw discomforting moments, including an alleged physical attack by a lawyer on then Chief Justice “B R Gavai” inside the courtroom. Meanwhile, judicial interventions in issues such as stray dog management exposed the court to public backlash more common to the executive.

Adding to this scrutiny were post-retirement interviews by former CJIs “D Y Chandrachud” and Justice Gavai, defending judgments ranging from the Babri Masjid–Ram Janmabhoomi verdict to the Aravalli hills ruling. Such public explanations, while rare earlier, have raised fresh debates about judicial propriety after retirement.

The Collegium under pressure — and visible dissent

The Supreme Court Collegium continued to attract criticism for opacity, but 2025 marked a notable shift: visible internal dissent. Justice “B V Nagarathna”, widely expected to become India’s first woman Chief Justice in 2027, recorded a dissent against the recommendation of Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi to the Supreme Court.

Significantly, her dissent was not included in the official Collegium resolution made public — raising questions about transparency even within the court’s own appointment process. With at least five Supreme Court judges set to retire in 2026, the Collegium led by Chief Justice “Surya Kant” will play a decisive role in shaping the court’s future composition.

Religion, identity and unresolved constitutional questions

Several religion-linked cases are likely to dominate the court’s docket in 2026. These include a substantive challenge to the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which froze the religious character of places of worship as of August 15, 1947, except Ayodhya.

The court is also expected to hear challenges to the 2025 Waqf law, parts of which were stayed in interim orders, and to revisit the Karnataka hijab ban. Another sensitive matter is the review of the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, reopening debate on the “essential religious practices” doctrine — a judicial test that has long divided the bench.

Citizens versus the state: elections, citizenship and liberty

Tensions between state power and individual rights will remain central. The Election Commission’s “Special Intensive Revision” of electoral rolls, first implemented in Bihar, is likely to face wider challenges as it expands nationally, particularly ahead of elections in opposition-ruled states such as West Bengal.

The court will also continue hearing challenges to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and bail pleas in high-profile cases such as that of “Umar Khalid”. Khalid’s prolonged incarceration has come to symbolise concerns over delays and the broad interpretation of anti-terror laws such as the UAPA.

Free speech and the court’s evolving stance

Chief Justice Surya Kant’s tenure has already signalled a muscular approach to speech-related cases. From stern observations in politically sensitive matters to suggestions of regulatory oversight of social media platforms, the court has walked a fine line between protecting expression and curbing abuse.

Cases involving hate speech, influencer content, and academic dissent — including orders for SIT probes — indicate that free speech jurisprudence will remain contentious and headline-grabbing in 2026.

Policy-heavy cases and new legislation

Beyond rights and religion, the Supreme Court will grapple with challenges to major new laws. These include the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which collapses the traditional distinction between games of skill and chance, and continued judicial oversight of Delhi-NCR’s air pollution crisis.

The phased implementation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, is also expected to generate litigation on privacy, state surveillance and corporate data practices.

A court at a crossroads

The events of 2025 have pushed the Supreme Court into an uncomfortable but unavoidable conversation about power, accountability and transparency. As 2026 begins, the institution faces simultaneous pressures: to decide momentous constitutional questions, to manage public scrutiny of judges, and to maintain legitimacy in a deeply polarised environment.

Whether the court emerges stronger will depend not just on its judgments, but on how it navigates dissent within, scrutiny without, and the delicate balance between restraint and authority that defines judicial power in a constitutional democracy.