September delivered developments across the full range of what courts handle: constitutional architecture, professional regulation, consumer rights, family law and disability. Several will take years to resolve. A few landed with immediate effect.
Supreme Court Splits on Election Commissioner Appointment Case
On 23 September, Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered a split verdict on whether the challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 must go to a Constitution Bench. The Act replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister on the selection panel. Justice Datta rejected reference, holding the governing principles already settled, and recorded pointed prima facie observations, including that whether the Act protects the Commission or merely "recalibrates executive control" must be examined on the merits. Justice Sharma held the question is a substantial one no earlier judgment has settled, and favoured reference. The papers now sit with Chief Justice Surya Kant to consider constituting a Constitution Bench. The Act remains in force in the interim.
Supreme Court Questions BCI's Age Cap for Law Admissions
On 25 September, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana asked the Bar Council of India to state whether it would withdraw the upper age limit it prescribed for admission to five-year integrated law courses. The limit, revived by a BCI notification of 17 September 2016, set a ceiling of twenty years for general-category candidates, with relaxation for reserved categories; the Supreme Court stayed it in March 2017, and it has not operated since. The petitioner, Rishabh Duggal, argues that the BCI's statutory power under the Advocates Act to prescribe minimum qualifications cannot be stretched into a maximum age. The BCI defended the ceiling on the ground that most five-year courses are residential and said the Court could determine the age; Justice Bagchi replied that not all five-year courses are residential, citing Calcutta University, and that residence is not a criterion for an age limit. The BCI sought a week to take instructions. The matter is listed after two weeks.
E-Commerce Amendment Rules Notified, Effective 1 January 2027
The Department of Consumer Affairs notified the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) (Amendment) Rules, 2026 on 9 September, by G.S.R. 789(E), with effect from 1 January 2027. Platforms that display a discounted price must also show the "prior price," defined as the lowest price at which the item was offered in the preceding thirty days. Sponsored listings must be disclosed as such. Manipulation of search results that misleads users or distorts relevance is prohibited, and a marketplace may not use consumer data to promote its own private-label goods without specific consent. The grievance timelines that applied since the 2020 Rules are retained, with two additions: complainants must receive a copy of the complaint as recorded by the grievance officer, and every platform must join the National Consumer Helpline's convergence framework. Seller disclosures are expanded to cover best-before dates, return shipping costs and accepted payment methods.
Air India Fined for De-Boarding Disabled Passenger, Damaging Wheelchair
By an order of 24 September, the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities imposed a fine of fifty thousand rupees on Air India and recommended compensation of five lakh rupees to Falguni Maheshwari, a wheelchair user with eighty percent locomotor disability. She had flown from Frankfurt to Delhi in May 2026 and been removed from the connecting Delhi to Bhuj flight after boarding, without written reasons; her wheelchair was returned damaged, and she arranged onward travel at her own cost. The order records that the airline's medical officer never assessed her, that the crew acted on visual, untrained observation, and that under the Civil Aviation Requirements a wheelchair is an assistive device integral to mobility and dignity, not ordinary baggage.
Madras High Court: Homemaking Has Economic Value, Whoever Does It
In a judgment reported on 25 September, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M.D. Sumathi, dissolved the marriage of a doctor couple by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, recording the husband's agreement to pay Rs 1.5 crore to the wife within three months and Rs 50 lakh to each of their two children within a year. The wife, a dentist, had raised the children at her parents' home for years while the husband completed his cardiology training. The court observed that the responsibility of earning an income and the responsibility of maintaining a household deserve equal respect, that "homemaker" is a gender-neutral word, and that if there can be housewives there can be house husbands.
Delhi High Court: Court Fee Refund on Settlement Needs No Separate Application
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Bharat Parashar held, in Hitech Enterprises v. Modern Construction Company Delhi, that under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act as substituted by the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2026, a party who settles a suit, counter-claim or appeal amicably at any stage is entitled to a full refund of court fees as a substantive statutory right. The court disposing of the settled matter must itself direct the refund and issue the certificate, without the party having to file a separate application.