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.

In 2018, West Bengal withdrew its consent to be under the CBI's jurisdiction. In 2021, as the CBI's activities in West Bengal continued, the state government filed an Original Suit in the Supreme Court arguing that the Union government had unlawfully and unconstitutionally deployed the CBI. The Union argued that the case was not maintainable at all, as it did not control the CBI, and that Original Suits can only be filed against the State. The Court's decision to uphold the maintainability of this petition is likely the beginning of an important debate on Union-state dynamics in the area of law and order. As the Court gears up to hear the case, which is likely to be heard this month, we explain everything that has happened so far.

Is the Supreme Court a man's world?

75 Years after the establishment of the Supreme Court, the institution has seen just 11 women judges in its corridors. Where does the problem lie?

As part of Supreme Court Observer's special series commemorating 75 years of the Supreme Court, we're presenting this video, capturing the highs and the lows for gender diversity at the top court.

Check out the special series now! We've written about the very first judges of the Supreme Court, on the Court's architecture and its meaning, Courts in cinema and more!

On 1 August 2024, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the validity of sub-classification within the reserved categories in a 6:1 majority. In an interview with the Supreme Court Observer, Dr Anup Surendranath, Prof. of Law at the National Law University, Delhi discussed the legal and social impact of the decision. He believes that while the judgement gets a lot right, its group-based approach to reservation and the extension of the ‘creamy layer’ exception to SC/STs, raise questions.

As a part of our special series celebrating 75 years of the Supreme Court of India, we published a story on the evolution of Public Interest Litigation jurisprudence since it was conceived in the late 1970s. Does it still function as a tool for social justice? We also published a story on the lives, interests, and careers of the first eight judges of the Court. Though the ensemble had things in common, their individual stories revealed many differences.