Week of April 13–19: CJI Calls UCC a 'Constitutional Ambition,' SC Rules 'Can' Does Not Create Arbitration Mandate, and Sabarimala Hearings Continue

Welcome to this week’s issue of The Indian Legal Brief. Here are the judgments, orders, regulatory changes, and developments that matter to your practice — without the noise.

Here’s what happened this week.

Supreme Court Highlights

CJI: “Uniform Civil Code Has Nothing To Do With Religion, It’s A Constitutional Ambition”

Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi — April 16, 2026

While hearing a writ petition challenging Muslim personal law provisions on inheritance as discriminatory against women, CJI Surya Kant observed: “Uniform Civil Code has nothing to do with religion, it’s a constitutional ambition.”

The petition, filed by Advocate Poulomi Pavani Shukla and the Nyaya Naari Foundation, contends that Muslim inheritance law entitles women to only half the share of property compared to men during intestate succession, in violation of Articles 14, 15, and 21.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that ideally there should be a uniform civil law governing inheritance across all religions, but noted concerns that the proposed UCC may result in imposition of a Hindu Civil Code. The Court issued notice to the Union Government seeking its response.

Why it matters: The case raises the broader question of whether courts can strike down personal law provisions as unconstitutional. The CJI’s characterisation of the UCC as a constitutional objective rather than a religious question is a notable framing that may influence how this case and related matters proceed.

”Can” Does Not Create a Mandate to Arbitrate

Nagreeka Indcon Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Cargocare Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2026 INSC 384] Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh — April 17, 2026

The Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause using the word “can” does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement. The case involved a Bill of Lading with Clause 25 stating that any dispute “can be settled by arbitration in India.”

The Court held that the modal verb “can” indicates “only a factual possibility or a desire to explore arbitration as a future mode of settlement rather than a mandatory mandate.” Such clauses do not qualify as valid arbitration agreements unless both parties provide fresh consensus when the dispute arises.

The Court noted that commercial entities should use the word “shall” to signal a binding obligation to arbitrate.

Why it matters: Practitioners drafting or reviewing dispute resolution clauses in commercial contracts, bills of lading, and charter parties should audit existing agreements. Clauses using “can,” “may,” or similar permissive language will not compel arbitration. Use “shall” for a binding mandate.

Sabarimala Reference: Hearings Continue Before Nine-Judge Bench

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi — April 14-16, 2026

Parties opposing the 2018 judgment continued their arguments this week before the nine-judge Constitution Bench. The Centre submitted that a secular court cannot determine whether a religious practice amounts to superstition, and maintained that India “is not as patriarchal as the West perceives it to be.”

The hearings are connected to 66 tagged matters, including challenges relating to the right of Muslim women to enter mosques, the right of Parsi women to enter a Fire Temple after marrying a non-Parsi, and the practice of female genital mutilation among the Dawoodi Bohra community.

Schedule: Rejoinder arguments are listed for April 21, with the amicus expected to conclude on April 22.

Why it matters: The verdict will establish the framework for resolving conflicts between individual religious freedom (Article 25) and denominational autonomy (Article 26) — with implications extending well beyond the Sabarimala temple entry question.

Ad Hoc Employees Appointed Without Recruitment Process Cannot Be Regularised

Madan Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. [2026 INSC 379 / 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 390] Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar — April 18, 2026

The Supreme Court examined the validity of Haryana Government’s 2014 notifications for regularisation of Group B, C, and D ad hoc/contractual/daily wage employees.

The Court took a nuanced approach:

Upheld the notifications dated June 16 and June 18, 2014, treating them as a permissible one-time extension of the earlier 1996 regularisation policy for employees who met prescribed qualifications and were engaged against sanctioned posts
Struck down the notification dated July 7, 2014, which sought to regularise persons appointed without advertisement or interview on a future cut-off date (December 31, 2018)

Exercising Article 142, the Court allowed employees already regularised under the struck-down notification and still in service to continue at the lowest pay scale for their posts.

Why it matters: Service law practitioners should note the distinction: one-time regularisation policies for employees with prescribed qualifications on sanctioned posts may survive, but blanket future regularisation of ad hoc appointees without any recruitment process will not.

SC Issues Binding SOP for Legal Aid Appeals

April 16, 2026

The Supreme Court issued a Standard Operating Procedure prescribing binding timelines for translation, transmission, and filing of records in legal aid appeals:

Communication of judgments and consent: 7 days
Collection of records: 10 days
Translation: 15–30 days
Filing of appeals: 15 days

The Court directed creation of a unified digital platform for real-time tracking and designated the NALSA Member Secretary as nodal officer. The bench noted concerns over poor quality of translations and asked High Courts to examine the issue within four weeks.

Compliance report due by April 30; next hearing on May 4.

Why it matters: Legal aid lawyers and legal services authorities must now comply with fixed timelines. The SOP addresses a persistent bottleneck — delays in translation and record transmission that often result in appeals being filed well beyond limitation.

Other Notable SC Orders This Week

ECC hike for Delhi — The Court approved revised Environment Compensation Charges for commercial vehicles entering Delhi, with a mandatory 5% annual increase to maintain deterrent effect against pollution
Dowry complaint protection — A woman or her family members cannot face proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act for “giving” dowry based on averments in their own complaint against the dowry takers
Military double jeopardy — Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against an Air Force officer discharged in a criminal trial on the same charge
Anil Ambani — SC dismissed plea to stay fraud classification of loan accounts
Mandatory voting rejected — The Court dismissed a plea seeking compulsory voting, upholding citizens’ right to choose not to vote
Discharged vs. acquitted — A discharged accused stands on a better footing than one acquitted after a criminal trial

Insolvency & Corporate

NCLAT Adjourns Vedanta-Adani JAL Hearing on Bench Reconstitution

The NCLAT adjourned hearing on Vedanta’s appeals challenging the selection of Adani Enterprises’ Rs 14,535 crore bid for Jaiprakash Associates, on account of a change in the composition of the bench. The next hearing date will be notified shortly.

Vedanta’s core contention remains that the Committee of Creditors approved Adani’s bid of Rs 14,535 crore despite Vedanta’s higher bid of Rs 17,926 crore, and that JAL’s liquidation value was estimated at Rs 15,799 crore — above the approved plan value.

Why it matters: The delay extends uncertainty over one of India’s largest insolvency resolutions. The reconstitution of the bench means fresh arguments may be required, further delaying resolution.

Access to Justice

Kerala Assembly Elections: Voting Completed, Results on May 4

Kerala’s 140-seat Legislative Assembly election was held on April 9. Results will be declared on May 4, 2026. The three main contesting alliances are the incumbent Left Democratic Front (LDF), the United Democratic Front (UDF), and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA).

Why it matters: The outcome will determine the political context for several pending legislative matters, including the FCRA Amendment Bill which was deferred partly due to concerns raised ahead of the Kerala elections.

SC Collegium Recommends Three Judges for Karnataka HC

The Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting on April 14, approved proposals for appointment of three judicial officers as Judges of the Karnataka High Court.

What We’re Watching Next Week

Sabarimala reference — Rejoinder arguments on April 21 and amicus submissions on April 22; hearings expected to conclude
Vedanta-Adani JAL — NCLAT to notify next hearing date after bench reconstitution
Legal aid SOP compliance — Report due by April 30
Post-facto environmental clearance — Judgment remains reserved from the CJI-led bench
Muslim inheritance law — Centre’s response awaited

That’s all for this week. If a colleague would find this useful, forward them this page — or better yet, ask them to subscribe.