This week in Indian law: The Lok Sabha on April 17 defeated the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, by 298 votes to 230 — falling 54 short of the two-thirds majority required under Article 368 — ending a high-stakes push to expand Parliament to 850 seats and operationalise the 33% women's reservation by 2029. The nine-judge Sabarimala Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant concluded opposition arguments on April 16, with Day 5 on April 17 featuring observations that constitutional courts must rise above personal religious consciousness when adjudicating religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26. The Supreme Court also issued notice in The Reporters Collective Trust v. Union of India on a constitutional challenge to Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023, which substitutes the RTI Act's public-interest balancing test with a blanket personal-data exemption. Thirteen significant legal developments this week across legislative policy, Supreme Court jurisprudence, constitutional rights, technology law, criminal law, corporate insolvency, and regulatory updates.
Top story
Lok Sabha Defeats Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill 2026
Category: Legislative & Policy | Date: 17 April 2026 | Score: 15/15
The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-First Amendment) Bill, 2026 — introduced in Lok Sabha on April 15 and debated through April 17 — was defeated on a division vote with 298 members voting in favour and 230 against, out of 528 who voted. Under Article 368 of the Constitution, amendments to Articles 81, 82, 170 and other core provisions require a two-thirds majority of members present and voting; the Bill therefore needed at least 352 affirmative votes and fell short by 54.
The Bill had proposed expanding Lok Sabha from 543 to 850 seats (815 from States and up to 35 from Union Territories), inserting Article 334A to operationalise the 33% women's reservation mandated by the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023, and restarting the delimitation process using Census 2011 data. Following the defeat, Union Minister Kiren Rijiju withdrew the companion Delimitation Bill, 2026, and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, on the ground that the three instruments formed an interconnected legislative package.
Why it matters: Home Minister Amit Shah had clarified during the debate that all elections up to 2029 would proceed on the existing 543-seat framework regardless of the vote, so the immediate electoral map is unchanged. The structural implications are substantial: the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam (106th Amendment) made women's reservation conditional on delimitation, so the Bill's defeat pushes operational 33% reservation beyond 2029. Southern-state concerns over proportional representation under any population-weighted exercise remain unresolved. The defeat is only the second failure of a Constitution Amendment Bill at the introduction-to-vote stage in the last two decades.
Court judgments
Sabarimala Review: Opposition Arguments Conclude; Day 5 on Judicial Objectivity
Court: Supreme Court of India | Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, R. Mahadevan, Prasanna B. Varale, and Joymalya Bagchi | Date: 14-17 April 2026
The nine-judge Constitution Bench hearing the Sabarimala review in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Review Petition (Civil) Nos. 3358-3359 of 2018) completed opposition arguments on April 16, with original writ petitioners concluding their case against re-opening the 2018 majority judgment. On Day 5 (April 17), the Bench — with Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah speaking — observed that constitutional courts must rise above personal religious consciousness, and that "religion" and "freedom of conscience" under Article 25 are distinct concepts that cannot be confined to the same scope. Rejoinder submissions are scheduled from April 21, with amicus concluding on April 22. Sixty-six matters are tagged to this reference.
Key point: The three core reference questions remain the scope of "morality" under Articles 25-26 (including whether it includes "constitutional morality"), the formulation of the essential religious practices doctrine, and whether sex-based exclusions attract strict scrutiny under Article 15.
SC Issues Notice on DPDP Act Section 44(3) Override of RTI
Court: Supreme Court of India | Date: 13 April 2026 | Case: The Reporters Collective Trust v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 211/2026
The Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which substitutes Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The original RTI provision permitted disclosure of personal information where public interest outweighed privacy; the DPDP amendment creates a blanket exemption for all personal data, removing the balancing test. The Court declined to stay the provision but referred the matter to a larger bench, acknowledging the issues are "complex" and "sensitive" and implicate both Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21. Next hearing: May 13, 2026.
Key point: This is the first constitutional challenge to the DPDP Act to reach the Supreme Court, and its outcome will shape the balance between data privacy and RTI transparency for government-held information.
SC Notice on MSP Fixation at C2 Cost of Cultivation
Court: Supreme Court of India | Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi | Date: 13 April 2026 | Case: Prakash Gopalrao Pohare & Ors. v. Union of India (Article 32)
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre and the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) on an Article 32 petition by Maharashtra farmers seeking a direction that Minimum Support Price be fixed on the comprehensive cost of cultivation (C2) basis — which includes imputed rent on owned land, interest on fixed capital, and family labour — rather than the current A2+FL formula. The petitioners invoked Articles 21 and 39(b), arguing that sub-C2 MSP amounts to pricing below actual production cost and violates the right to livelihood.
Key point: The Swaminathan Committee had recommended MSP at C2 + 50%; a judicial direction at C2 could increase procurement prices by 20-30% across major crops, with significant fiscal implications.
SC Suspends Anosh Ekka's Sentence, Flags Dual CBI Prosecutions
Court: Supreme Court of India | Date: 13 April 2026 | Citation: Anosh Ekka v. State through CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 1922/2026, 2026 INSC 357
The Supreme Court suspended the seven-year sentence of former Jharkhand Cabinet Minister Anosh Ekka — convicted under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120B IPC in a disproportionate assets case — and released him on bail under Section 389 CrPC pending appeal. The Bench noted that two separate CBI chargesheets arising from the same check period and substantially overlapping allegations had been filed against him, raising concerns about prosecutorial overreach. The Court directed Ekka to file an undertaking within seven days to assist in restoration of tribal land status under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
Key point: The observations on dual prosecution may become a touchstone for abuse-of-process claims where CBI files multiple chargesheets from a single investigation.
SC Issues Notices on PIL to Extend Article 21A to Ages 3-6
Court: Supreme Court of India | Bench: CJI Surya Kant | Date: 14 April 2026
The Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre, all States and Union Territories on a PIL seeking to extend the fundamental right to free and compulsory education under Article 21A — currently limited to children aged 6-14 — to the 3-6 age group. The petitioners rely on the National Education Policy 2020's foundational-stage (5+3+3+4) recommendation and argue that Article 45 (Directive Principle) should be elevated to a justiciable right. The Court indicated interest in constituting an expert committee involving NCERT to examine implementation modalities.
Key point: If Article 21A is judicially or legislatively extended to ages 3-6, the RTE Act, 2009 would need significant re-engineering to cover approximately 160 million additional children and mandate universal ECCE infrastructure.
SC Collegium Recommends Five High Court Judges (Karnataka, Kerala)
Court: Supreme Court of India | Date: 14 April 2026
The Collegium headed by CJI Surya Kant recommended three judicial officers — Smt. Rajeshwari Narayana Hegde, Smt. Kedambadi Ganesh Shanthi, and Shri Mahadevappa Brungesh — for elevation to the Karnataka High Court, and two women advocates for appointment to the Kerala High Court under Articles 217 and 224 of the Constitution. Two of the three Karnataka recommendations are women, continuing the trend toward improved gender representation on the bench.
Key point: High Court vacancies stand at approximately 30% nationally as of April 2026; Karnataka HC has 12 vacancies against a sanctioned strength of 62 and Kerala HC has 8 vacancies against 47.
NCLAT: Realty Insolvency Must Be Confined to the Defaulting Project
Court: NCLAT | Date: 12 April 2026 | Case: Navin M. Raheja v. Committee of Creditors
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ruled that a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) initiated under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against a real estate company must be confined to the specific project where the default occurred, and cannot extend to the developer's other projects. In the Raheja Developers matter, the CIRP was limited to the "Krishna Housing Scheme," protecting homebuyers in unrelated projects of the same developer from being pulled into consolidated insolvency. Claims in the project-specific CIRP are correspondingly restricted to creditors of that project.
Key point: The ruling entrenches "project-wise CIRP" as the default treatment for real-estate insolvency under the IBC-RERA interface, shielding unrelated homebuyers from cross-project contagion.
Legislative and policy developments
India to Constitute Special NCLT Bench for Cross-Border Insolvency
Date: 17 April 2026
Following Presidential assent to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 on April 6, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India are drafting subordinate rules to operationalise a dedicated NCLT bench for cross-border insolvency cases. The framework is based on a modified version of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, 1997, and will enable recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings in India and cooperation between Indian resolution professionals and foreign courts for asset recovery. Members will receive specialised training before the bench is notified.
Regulatory updates
RBI Mandates Same-Day Credit for Cross-Border Inward Payments
Date: 14 April 2026
The Reserve Bank of India issued guidelines under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 requiring banks to credit cross-border inward remittances to beneficiary accounts on the same business day where the payment message is received during forex market hours (approximately 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM IST). Messages received outside market hours must be credited by the next business day. Banks must reconcile nostro accounts on a near real-time basis or, at minimum, within one-hour intervals during the business day — replacing prior end-of-day reconciliation practice — and must notify customers immediately upon receipt of inward payment messages.
Also this week
Five new HC judges recommended — Collegium on April 14 cleared three judicial officers for the Karnataka HC and two women advocates for the Kerala HC; both courts have vacancy rates in the 15-20% range. Source
Nine-judge Sabarimala bench flags Article 25 scope — On Day 5 (April 17), the Bench distinguished "religion" from "freedom of conscience" and observed that judges must rise above personal religious belief. Source
IBC cross-border framework operationalisation planned — Rules under the IBC (Amendment) Act, 2026 being drafted to establish a dedicated NCLT bench trained in cross-border matters. Source
By the numbers
- 298 : 230 — Lok Sabha division on the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill on April 17 — 54 votes short of the 352 required for a two-thirds majority under Article 368
- 66 — Matters tagged to the nine-judge Sabarimala reference, including cases on Muslim women's mosque entry, Parsi women in fire temples, and female genital circumcision
- Rs 89 lakh — Settlement amount in the Dhananjay Rathi v. Ruchika Rathi matrimonial matter from the same week (mentioned in the division between parties whose consent estoppel arose)
- Section 44(3) DPDP Act — Single provision before the SC that substitutes Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, removing the public-interest balancing test for all personal-data disclosures
Looking ahead
- Monday, 21 April: Sabarimala nine-judge bench reconvenes for rejoinder submissions; amicus curiae to conclude on April 22 after which judgment is expected to be reserved
- 13 May 2026: Next hearing in The Reporters Collective Trust v. Union of India — larger-bench reference on DPDP Act Section 44(3) RTI override
- Rules notification pending: IBBI and MCA expected to release draft regulations on cross-border insolvency under the IBC (Amendment) Act, 2026
- Political aftermath: Government expected to re-calibrate delimitation and women's reservation timelines following the 131st Amendment Bill's defeat; watch for fresh legislative proposal in Monsoon Session
Frequently asked questions
Q1: What happens now that the 131st Amendment Bill has been defeated?
A defeated Constitution Amendment Bill cannot be reintroduced in the same session but can be brought again in a subsequent session. Under Article 368, it would require a fresh two-thirds majority. In the meantime, the existing 543-seat Lok Sabha framework continues, and the 33% women's reservation under the 106th Amendment remains procedurally blocked because it is conditional on delimitation. Home Minister Amit Shah confirmed in the debate that all elections up to 2029 will proceed unchanged.
Q2: Is the DPDP Act's Section 44(3) currently in force while the challenge is pending?
Yes. The Supreme Court on April 13 declined to grant interim stay on the operation of Section 44(3). The provision has been in force since the DPDP Act commencement and continues to operate — meaning public authorities can currently rely on the blanket personal-data exemption when refusing RTI requests. The matter has been referred to a larger bench, with next hearing on May 13, 2026.
Q3: When will the Sabarimala nine-judge bench deliver judgment?
As of April 19, 2026, arguments are not yet complete. Rejoinder submissions begin April 21 and amicus arguments conclude on April 22. After that the bench is expected to reserve judgment. Given the constitutional significance and 66 tagged matters (including mosque entry, Parsi fire temple access, and female genital circumcision cases), the judgment may take several months to be pronounced.
This is the Veritect Weekly Legal Roundup for Week 17, 2026 (April 13-19). For daily updates, visit our legal news page. Subscribe to receive this roundup every Monday morning.
Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.