The Supreme Court grows to 38 judges, by ordinance and then by Act
5 August 2026
On 16 May 2026 the President promulgated the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 under Article 123, raising the number of judges other than the Chief Justice from 33 to 37, so the full strength rose from 34 to 38. The government cited pendency of over 90,000 cases. A Bill to replace the ordinance was passed by the Lok Sabha on 3 August and the Rajya Sabha on 5 August 2026, according to PRS. The last increase, from 30 to 33, was in 2019.
Background. Article 124(1) began with a Chief Justice and seven other judges and lets Parliament raise the number by law; it does so through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. An ordinance must be laid before Parliament and lapses six weeks after Parliament reassembles unless replaced.
Why CLAT asks: The ordinance-then-Bill sequence, and who fixes the Court's strength, are both standard questions.
Sources: PRS Bill Track: Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026; SCC Online: Four more judges for the Supreme Court (18 May 2026)
Challenge to the Election Commissioners Act goes to a Constitution Bench
23 September 2026
Petitions led by Dr. Jaya Thakur, with ADR and PUCL, challenge the 2023 Act under which the CEC and Election Commissioners are chosen by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and a Cabinet Minister named by the Prime Minister. The Constitution Bench in Anoop Baranwal (2023) had said the Commission must be insulated from exclusive executive control. On 23 September 2026 (2026 INSC 1040) Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma differed on whether five judges were needed: Datta, J. thought Anoop Baranwal could simply be applied; Sharma, J. thought the Act's validity needed fresh examination. Both then asked the Chief Justice to consider a Constitution Bench.
Background. Article 145(3): a case involving a substantial question of law on the interpretation of the Constitution must be heard by at least five judges, a Constitution Bench.
Why CLAT asks: Article 145(3) and the line from Anoop Baranwal to the 2023 Act make a tidy two-step question.
Source: Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 1040 (Supreme Court, 23 September 2026)
A ₹425-crore customs penalty falls because it cited case law that did not exist
2 September 2026
In Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India (2026 INSC 947), decided on 2 September 2026, the Supreme Court checked the authorities relied on by a customs officer who had imposed a penalty of over ₹425 crore for passing off natural diamonds as lab-grown. Some cases did not exist or carried fake citations; others were real but did not say what was claimed. Calling it an AI hallucination, the Court applied its earlier ruling in Pooja Ramesh Singh that a decision into which unverified AI-generated material enters is no decision in law. It quashed the order and sent the matter to a different officer. It noted its draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026: AI may assist but cannot adjudicate.
Background. Quasi-judicial authorities such as customs adjudicators must follow natural justice and give reasons. A reasoned order resting on non-existent authority has no valid reasons at all.
Why CLAT asks: A likely passage topic: what an AI tool may and may not do in a legal decision.
Source: Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 947 (Supreme Court, 2 September 2026)
Sikkim declared the first paperless State judiciary
1 May 2026
At the National Conclave on Technology and Judicial Education in Gangtok on 1 May 2026, organised by the High Court of Sikkim with the Supreme Court's e-Committee, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declared Sikkim the country's first paperless State judiciary, relying on e-filing, virtual hearings and electronic case records. He said judges must understand AI well enough to assess algorithm-based tools critically.
Background. The e-Courts Mission Mode Project, run with the Supreme Court's e-Committee, is in its third phase. The Supreme Court's own AI tools include SUVAS, which translates judgments into Indian languages, and SUPACE, a research aid.
Why CLAT asks: Firsts are easy marks: the first paperless State judiciary, and the CJI who announced it.
Sources: All India Radio News: Sikkim becomes country's first paperless judiciary State (1 May 2026); LiveLaw: CJI declares Sikkim the first paperless State judiciary
'One Case One Data' and the 'Su Sahay' chatbot
11 May 2026
On 11 May 2026 Chief Justice Surya Kant announced 'One Case One Data', an initiative to bring case data from the Supreme Court, High Courts, district and taluka courts into one digital system, and launched 'Su Sahay', an AI chatbot on the Supreme Court's website built by the National Informatics Centre with the Court's Registry to guide litigants to its services. He said technology cannot replace the human touch in justice or legal aid.
Background. The National Judicial Data Grid already publishes case pendency data for courts across the country.
Why CLAT asks: Expect a match-the-initiative question: Su Sahay (chatbot), SUVAS (translation), SUPACE (research), NJDG (data).
Source: ETV Bharat: CJI Surya Kant announces 'One Case One Data' initiative, launches AI chatbot 'Su Sahay'
Secretly filming a hearing can be contempt
5 October 2026
On 5 October 2026 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court (Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale) dealt, on its own motion, with a man who filmed proceedings on his phone without permission and tried to delete the video. The Court held that its live-streaming rules expressly bar recording without written permission, and that unauthorised recording or sharing can attract the Copyright Act, the IT Act and the law of contempt, since it interferes with the administration of justice. Courtrooms are open to the public, but those who attend must follow the rules. It accepted his apology, had the data erased, and ordered him to pay ₹10,000 to the legal services authority.
Background. Articles 129 and 215 make the Supreme Court and the High Courts courts of record with power to punish for contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 distinguishes civil contempt (wilful disobedience of a court order) from criminal contempt (scandalising the court, prejudicing proceedings or obstructing justice).
Why CLAT asks: Open justice and its limits, and the civil-criminal contempt distinction, are common legal-reasoning ideas.
Source: High Court on its Own Motion v. Dilip Wagh (Bombay High Court, 5 October 2026)
