Week of April 6–12: Sabarimala Reference Begins Before Nine-Judge Bench, SC Refuses Stay on Adani-JAL Plan, and e-Courts Phase III Launched

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

Sabarimala Reference: Nine-Judge Bench Commences Hearings

Bench: Chief Justice 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 7-8, 2026

The nine-judge Constitution Bench commenced hearings on the Sabarimala reference, examining seven constitutional questions on the scope of religious freedom:

Scope and ambit of freedom of religion under Article 25
Interplay between Article 25 (individual rights) and Article 26 (denominational rights)
Whether Article 26 rights are subject to other Part III provisions beyond public order, morality, and health
Scope of “morality” in Articles 25-26, including constitutional morality
Extent of judicial review regarding religious practices under Article 25
Meaning of “Sections of Hindus” in Article 25(2)(b)
Standing for non-members to challenge religious denomination practices via PIL

The Solicitor General invoked the “rule of harmonious construction,” arguing that “Article 26(b) must be read subject to Article 25(2)(b)” to give effect to both provisions. The Centre submitted that a secular court cannot determine whether a religious practice amounts to superstition.

Justice Nagarathna observed that “in Devaruand, there can be a possibility of Article 26(b) over Article 25(2)(b),” raising a potential hierarchy between individual and denominational rights.

Why it matters: The verdict will determine the framework for resolving conflicts between individual religious freedom and denominational autonomy across all faiths — affecting pending cases including the Sabarimala temple entry question and the Dawoodi Bohra excommunication challenge.

SC Refuses Stay on Adani’s Rs 14,535 Crore JAL Resolution Plan

Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi — April 6, 2026

The Supreme Court declined to stay implementation of Adani Enterprises’ resolution plan for Jaiprakash Associates Ltd, while directing the NCLAT to hear Vedanta’s appeal on April 10 on priority.

Vedanta’s core argument: its bid of Rs 17,926 crore was Rs 3,400 crore higher than Adani’s, yet the Committee of Creditors approved Adani’s plan without recording reasons for rejecting the higher bid.

The Court introduced a safeguard — any major policy decisions by the monitoring committee or implementing authorities must seek prior NCLAT approval before execution.

Why it matters: The NCLAT hearing will examine whether the CoC was required to record reasons for selecting a lower bid, and the scope of judicial review over the commercial wisdom of creditors under the IBC.

NCLT Cannot Examine Merits of Pre-Existing Dispute in Section 9 Applications

GLS Films Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Chemical Suppliers India Pvt. Ltd. [2026 INSC 344 / 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 362] April 11, 2026

The Supreme Court held that all the adjudicating authority needs to do under Section 9 of the IBC is satisfy itself of the existence of a “plausible pre-existing dispute, which is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory.” The NCLT cannot examine whether the dispute will ultimately succeed on merits.

The case involved a Rs 2.92 crore claim for chemical supplies. GLS Films raised defective goods as a defence, supported by a debit note of Rs 2.42 crore. The NCLT dismissed the insolvency petition on the basis of a pre-existing dispute; the NCLAT reversed this. The Supreme Court restored the NCLT’s order.

Why it matters: This reinforces the settled position on Section 9 — the threshold for establishing a pre-existing dispute remains low. Operational creditors cannot use the IBC as a debt recovery mechanism when a plausible dispute exists.

Constructive Res Judicata Bars Title Suits Where Declaration Was Omitted Earlier

April 9, 2026

The Supreme Court held that a subsequent suit for declaration of title is barred under Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC (constructive res judicata) where the plaintiff omitted to seek title declaration in an earlier suit for permanent injunction in which title was in dispute.

Why it matters: Property litigators should note that all grounds relating to a dispute must be raised in the first proceeding. Omitting a title declaration claim in an injunction suit forecloses the right to bring a separate title suit later.

Other Notable SC Orders This Week

Right to vote and contest — The Court reiterated that neither the right to vote nor the right to contest an election is a fundamental right; both are statutory rights subject to regulation
Cooperative societies — Independent cooperative societies are not “State” under Article 12; their election procedures are governed by statutory limitations

Insolvency & Corporate

NCLAT Sets Three-Month Deadline for Future Lifestyle Fashion Resolution

NCLAT Bench: Justice Yogesh Khanna and Ajai Das Mehrotra — April 6, 2026

The NCLAT directed that the insolvency resolution process for Future Lifestyle Fashions Ltd (FLFL) be concluded within three months. The proceedings have already exceeded the 330-day statutory limit under the IBC.

The order came as the tribunal dismissed an appeal by an operational creditor seeking to vacate a property housing FLFL’s ‘Central’ brand store, which generates over 80% of the company’s business.

Why it matters: The directive underscores the NCLAT’s increasing focus on enforcing IBC timelines. The case also highlights the tension between operational creditor claims and preservation of going-concern value during resolution.

Legislative Watch

Delhi HC Issues Notice on Challenge to Transgender Persons Amendment Act, 2026

Division Bench: Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia

The Delhi High Court issued notice on a PIL challenging provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, which received Presidential assent on March 30.

The petition, filed by Chandresh Jain, contends that the Amendment replaces the self-determination framework recognised by the Supreme Court in the NALSA judgment with a system of medical and administrative verification of gender identity. It challenges Sections 2(aa), 2(k), 4(2), 6, 7, 18(e) and 18(f) of the Act as amended.

The matter has been listed for hearing on July 22.

Why it matters: This is the first formal judicial challenge to the 2026 Amendment. The outcome will determine whether the state-controlled certification model survives constitutional scrutiny under Articles 14, 19, and 21, particularly in light of the NALSA precedent.

Access to Justice

CJI Launches e-Courts Phase III with Rs 7,210 Crore Outlay

April 11-12, 2026 — Supreme Court Complex, New Delhi

Chief Justice Surya Kant launched Phase III of the e-Courts project at a two-day National Conference on “Judicial Process Re-Engineering & Digital Transformation,” organised by the eCommittee of the Supreme Court in collaboration with the Department of Justice.

The CJI observed: “Technology has become a constitutional instrument… a tool that strengthens equality before the law.” He added: “The question is no longer whether courts are digitised, but whether the system itself is being transformed to better serve citizens.”

Key features of Phase III:

Rs 7,210 crore investment to extend digital justice to remote regions
Expansion of eSewa Kendras (facilitation centres for litigants)
Single Sign-On (SSO) portal for unified platform access
Electronic delivery of court documents and summons via email
Integration between e-Courts and e-Prisons systems
Biennial report on implementation progress

Justice Vikram Nath (eCommittee Chairman) and Union Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal also addressed the conference.

NALSA North Zone Conference on Access to Justice

April 11, 2026

The National Legal Services Authority convened the North Zone Regional Conference on “Enhancing Access to Justice,” continuing the institutional focus on expanding legal services delivery across underserved regions.

What We’re Watching Next Week

Sabarimala reference — Nine-judge bench hearings continue; the Centre and state parties are expected to complete arguments
Vedanta-Adani JAL appeal at NCLAT — The tribunal’s findings on CoC reasoning and bid valuation will be closely watched
Post-facto environmental clearance — CJI-led bench has reserved judgment; delivery expected
Transgender Persons Amendment Act — Additional challenges may be filed at the Supreme Court level
April 14: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Jayanti — Courts closed

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