In the late 1970s, the Supreme Court introduced the innovation of Public interest litigation. The idea was to improve the access of marginalised individuals and groups to the higher courts through proceedings brought by unaffected parties.

How has this promise and purpose played out since then? As part of our special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court, Advocate Gulnar A. Mistry traces the changing understanding of locus standi through the utterances and decisions of the Court in PIL matters. The result, she argues, is a haphazard jurisprudence that creates uncertainty in the mind of a bona fide seeker of public-oriented justice.

Read now!

Last week, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act in a 4:1 majority. There were three opinions and multiple issues to consider.

While the majority and the concurring opinions upheld the constitutional validity, J.B. Pardiwala in his dissent provided strong reasons to strike it down.

We bring you the key highlights of the decision.

In star-led commercial films, the courtroom has traditionally been presented as the hallowed ground that the wronged enter with innocent optimism. However, the Marathi-language film 'Court', has shed this dramatic trapping, choosing instead to focus on the not-so-rosy realities of the judicial system.

In her essay as part of our special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court, film critic Anna Vetticad argues that the portrayal of the judiciary extends beyond entertainment—it serves as a mirror reflecting societal attitudes toward justice.

Recently, the Supreme Court invoked its discretionary powers under Article 142 to grant Atul Kumar, a Dalit student, admission to the Indian Institute of Technology in Dhanbad.

Article 142 is a unique provision that grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any necessary order to secure ‘complete justice’. We explore the many facets of this provision and how it has evolved over the years.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court started live streaming Constitution Bench hearings on YouTube for the first time. Recently, as the Court has started livestreaming select Division Bench cases, the lines between public interest and institutional posturing have become somewhat blurrier and concerns about performative justice remain relevant.

On 23 September 2024, a Division Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala held that viewing, possession and storage of material depicting minors engaged in sexual activity constitutes an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’). This judgement stands out globally, as most countries still do not have clear laws that explicitly criminalise viewing and possession of ‘child pornography.’ What does the judgment say? Watch Supreme Court Observer's video explainer to find out!

Standing in India's capital, the Supreme Court's iconic circular design isn't just a striking architectural feature—it is meant to symbolise order amidst the diversity of the people it serves. For 75 years, this institution has balanced its duality, between its constitutional values and colonial history, the right and the left, and centre and state. From the courtroom’s high bench to the flowing black gowns, the Court mirrors a complex journey between tradition and transformation. Commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court, SCO has published a special series, which includes Rahela Khorakiwala's essay on the top court's architecture and its symbolism. Read now!

On 18 August, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognisance of the rape and murder of a woman trainee doctor at Kolkata’s R.G. Kar Medical College. A bench of CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra reasoned that they took up the matter despite “seasoned judges” of the Calcutta High Court dealing with it because the case concerned the question of safety of doctors across the country. So far, the Court has heard the case 4 times. It set up a National Task Force to formulate a pan-India protocol for the safety of doctors and has reviewed the CBI’s status report three times. We bring you the story so far.