As 2025 draws to a close, the Supreme Court of India finds itself under an unusually intense public and political spotlight. Allegations against sitting judges, impeachment attempts, visible fissures within the Collegium, and a series of high-stakes constitutional cases have combined to make judicial conduct and accountability a defining theme of the year. With unresolved institutional questions and a crowded docket ahead, 2026 is poised to be a decisive moment for India’s apex court.
When judges became the headline
A striking feature of 2025 was that judges themselves became central to public debate. Allegations of unaccounted cash at the official residence of former Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma triggered an internal inquiry that soon spilled into Parliament. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Justice Varma’s challenge to the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla for constituting an inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act has elevated the matter from an internal disciplinary issue to a constitutional confrontation.
If Parliament proceeds with impeachment, 2026 could witness the first successful removal of a constitutional court judge in India’s history — an event with far-reaching implications for judicial accountability and independence. In contrast, the failed impeachment attempt against Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Yadav underscored the political nature of the process, where outcomes hinge as much on parliamentary arithmetic as on the gravity of allegations.
Courts under the digital microscope
The continuation of hybrid hearings has expanded access to justice, but it has also placed judges under an unforgiving digital gaze. Oral remarks, courtroom banter and interim observations increasingly circulate on social media, often stripped of legal nuance and amplified through partisan narratives. The alleged physical attack by a lawyer on then Chief Justice B R Gavai inside the courtroom shocked observers and highlighted the fraying boundaries of institutional respect.
Adding to the debate were post-retirement interviews by former Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Gavai, where they publicly defended controversial judgments, including the Ayodhya verdict. While intended as clarification, such interventions have reignited questions about whether judges should publicly explain or justify decisions after demitting office.
Collegium opacity and internal dissent
Judicial appointments remained contentious, but 2025 marked a qualitative shift: dissent within the Collegium became visible. Justice B V Nagarathna , widely expected to become India’s first woman Chief Justice in 2027, recorded a dissent against a recommendation — only for it to be omitted from the Collegium resolution placed in the public domain. This episode sharpened concerns about transparency, not merely between the judiciary and executive, but within the court itself.
With at least five Supreme Court judges set to retire in 2026, the Collegium led by Chief Justice Surya Kant will decisively shape the court’s ideological and institutional direction.
Religion, identity and constitutional fault lines
Several religion-linked disputes are likely to dominate the court’s agenda in 2026. Chief among them is the challenge to the Places of Worship Act, 1991 , which froze the religious character of places of worship as of August 15, 1947, except Ayodhya. Any reconsideration would test the court’s commitment to constitutional secularism and its own precedent.
Other sensitive matters include challenges to the 2025 Waqf law, the revival of litigation on the Karnataka hijab ban, and the review of the 2018 Sabarimala judgment — reopening debates on the “essential religious practices” doctrine that has long divided the bench.