New Delhi: The Pegasus spyware allegations, the Manipur violence, the Char Dham highway project and the July student protests—what do they have in common? Nothing, except that they are all being investigated by committees the Supreme Court has constituted. Mostly headed by retired judges, these committees serve as the extended arm of the top court.
But how do these committees function, who are the members and what happens to their recommendations? The committees are different in purpose, but each raises the same question: What happens after the SC delegates a task to a committee? ThePrint examines the work of some crucial committees over the years and the status of their recommendations.
Pegasus software (2021)
This committee was set up to probe the allegations against the BJP government for its alleged use of Israeli spyware Pegasus to target activists, journalists, politicians, judges and government officials.
A bench of then CJI Ramana, and then justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli constituted an expert committee whose functioning was overseen by a retired judge of the Supreme Court—Justice R. V. Raveendran in October 2021.
Multiple PILs sought an independent probe into the alleged use of Pegasus spyware, while the Centre declined to file a detailed affidavit, citing national security concerns. The SC ruled that national security could not be a blanket shield against judicial review, citing threats to privacy and free speech and rejected the Centre’s proposal for its own panel in favour of an independent committee.
The committee had 2 members and 3 technical experts to determine whether Pegasus was used to spy on Indian citizens, who acquired the spyware, and whether it was done lawfully. It was also asked to provide recommendations on improving India’s cybersecurity, as well as measures that protect citizens’ right to privacy, especially in cases of illegal surveillance.
The committee conducted deposition hearings of experts and petitioners associated with the case including MP John Brittas, journalists Sashi Menon and Siddharth Varadarajan between December 2021 and February 2022. In May 2022, the technical committee was granted more time to complete their investigation and submit their report.
The committee finally submitted its report to the SC in a sealed cover in August 2022. The order notes that the sealed covers were opened in the court and the judges read out some portions of the reports. “Thereafter, the reports were re-sealed and kept in the safe custody of the Secretary General of this court, who shall make it available as and when required by the court,” the CJI said.
The CJI also informed advocates appearing in the matter that the technical committee examined 29 phones. Of them, five phones had some malware but the technical committee noted that it could not be said to be Pegasus.
Since then, no substantial hearing has taken place in this case. The expert committee is no longer active, while the ongoing litigation remains pending in court. From 2022 to 2026, the case was listed 5 times (the last time in April 2025), however, these were only additional documents being filed and the case repeatedly getting relisted.
Char Dham Highway Project committee (2022)
The SC constituted a high-powered committee (HPC) in August 2019 to examine environmental concerns surrounding the Char Dham highway project in Uttarakhand, which involves widening roads connecting four pilgrimage sites in the Himalayan region.
Appointed by the SC bench of then CJI Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant, the HPC was chaired by former SC judge Justice A. K. Sikri. He replaced environmentalist Professor Ravi Chopra, who resigned from the position in January/February 2022 over disagreements regarding road-width configurations and defence requirements.
The Supreme Court-appointed committee, initially led by noted environmentalist Chopra, faced severe internal friction. The majority view of 21 members was dominated heavily by government and institutional officials in favour of a 12-metre configuration (a 7-metre double-lane carriageway with paved and earthen shoulders).
They asserted that wider roads were crucial for heavy military transport and snow removal near international borders. They also argued that landslides were a vulnerability of the terrain itself, rather than a direct consequence of road cutting.
The minority chairperson’s view of 4 members led by Chopra strongly dissented. They insisted that the project adhere to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways’ (MoRTH) 2018 circular, which mandates an intermediate width of 5.5 metres for fragile mountain terrains.
The report highlighted severe ecological damage, including unscientific hill cutting, disagreements concerning road widening and defence requirements. The Supreme Court subsequently appointed former judge Justice A. K. Sikri to oversee the relevant work.
Justice Sikri’s committee is now monitoring the implementation of the Char Dham project, ensuring it adheres to the top court’s November 2021 judgment. In this verdict, SC allowed the Centre to construct a double lane paved shoulder (DLPS) road of 12 m blacktop under the project, while stressing on the need to adopt a sustainable and eco-friendly approach.
Union Minister Nitin Gadkari has set 2026-end as the date for the completion of the network.
In September 2026, the committee submitted its 18th status report to the Supreme Court. Acting on environmental and geological concerns following severe flooding in the Dharali region, the committee collaborated with the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to pull back and review Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) for five crucial stretches spanning 100 km along the Gangotri-Uttarkashi-Bhagirathi eco-sensitive zone. Following the committee’s rigorous assessments, construction of a major bypass in Netala was formally put on hold pending detailed sub-surface investigations.
LGBTQIA+ rights committee (2024)
When the Supreme Court declined to recognise same sex marriage, its October 2023 verdict recorded the BJP government’s undertaking to set up a committee to examine and address discrimination in accessing benefits by queer couples. While the government did constitute a committee under the chairpersonship of the Cabinet Secretary in April 2024, it has met only twice since then, with the report still awaited.
Unlike other committees where the top court directly appointed the members, this panel was formed by the government following the court’s directions. The six-member committee includes the Cabinet Secretary and secretaries from the Ministries of Home Affairs, Women and Child Development, Health and Family Welfare, Law and Justice, and Social Justice and Empowerment. Its mandate also includes looking into welfare access and other entitlements including healthcare for queer couples.
The committee’s report, however, remains pending more than two years after its formation, with no clear date given for its submission. According to the Centre’s reply to a question asked by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor in the Lok Sabha in August 2026, the full committee met a total of two times—in May and August 2024—since its inception. The reply also noted that the top court had not set a deadline for the report and separate sub-committee meetings had taken place.
Manipur conflict committee (2023)
In August 2023, the SC set up an expert committee led by ex-judge Gita Mittal to oversee the humanitarian crisis in the violence that broke out in Manipur and to look into relief measures, rehabilitation, compensation, relief camps, and restoration of homes and religious sites in the state.
Two weeks after being set up, the committee submitted three reports to the SC. The first report stated that many victims of the Manipur violence had lost important documents, including Aadhaar cards since the violence began. CJI D. Y. Chandrachud expressed concern, stating that “benefits are distributed through Aadhar cards, so that is very crucial”.
In the second report, the committee highlighted the need for “substantial improvements” in the existing compensation scheme which disqualifies recipients from receiving benefits if they have already been covered by other programmes. They suggested that the scheme should conform to the framework of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) scheme. The 2018 NALSA Scheme compensates female victims of sexual violence and other crimes.
The third report identified “local administrative experts” and recommended that they oversee compensation for victims of violence, comprehensive psychological assistance and mental health care, medical care, relief camps, and data reporting.
The committee continued submitting reports as the humanitarian situation evolved. Its work extended beyond a single fact-finding exercise to monitoring whether victims were receiving assistance and whether administrative arrangements were adequate.
In January 2026, the Supreme Court extended the committee’s tenure until 31 July 2026, after being informed that it had submitted 42 reports. The court regularised its continuation from July 2025.
In September 2026, the Supreme Court took note of its 47th report, which raised concerns about unnatural deaths among displaced people in relief camps and gaps in the registration and investigation of those deaths.
Farm laws committee (2021)
On 12 January 2021, the Supreme Court stayed implementation of the three much-protested against farm laws and appointed a committee to hear farmers, unions, state governments and other stakeholders and make recommendations.
The committee included agricultural economist Dr Ashok Gulati, farmer leader Anil Ghanwat and agricultural policy expert Pramod Kumar Joshi.
The committee submitted its report in a sealed cover on 19 March 2021. However the laws were repealed later that year, in December 2021. When Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the rollback and Parliament subsequently repealed the laws in December 2021, the underlying legal dispute effectively ceased to exist. The report was subsequently made public by Anil Ghanwat independently, but the court did not take up the committee’s recommendations in a substantive follow-up hearing.
The report cited frustration that the public and policymakers were being deprived of data, showing that a “silent majority” of farmers actually favoured the reforms.
Advisory committee for transgenders (2025)
On 17 October 2025, the Supreme Court constituted a committee while awarding compensation to a transwoman Jane Kaushik, whose appointment as a teacher had been terminated by private schools because of her gender identity.
The Court also framed guidelines for institutions until the Centre formulated a policy. The committee is headed by retired Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon. Its members include transgender activists and professors. Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari is the amicus curiae.
The committee is intended to facilitate equal employment opportunities, inclusive medical care and protection for transgender and gender-nonconforming people.
Unlike committees that investigate allegations retrospectively, this body has a forward-looking role: Helping translate court-issued protections into institutional practices and safeguards. The Committee on Transgender Rights and Equal Opportunities is currently carrying out nationwide stakeholder consultations to draft the binding national Equal Opportunity Policy (EOP).
In March 2026, when the central government introduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill 2026, replacing self-perceived gender identity with mandatory medical board screenings, the committee formally intervened.
After the Committee met in March, Justice Asha Menon wrote a direct resolution to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, calling the bill a “tremendous setback” and urging the Centre to withdraw it due to severe privacy and human rights concerns.
July student protests committee (2026)
In August 2026, the Supreme Court constituted a five-member high-powered enquiry committee to investigate allegations of violence during student protests at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi and other locations. The committee was headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
In 2 months, in October 2026, the committee informed the Supreme Court that a complaints portal was ready for launch to receive information and evidence while protecting the anonymity and confidentiality of complainants. The court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to provide the infrastructure needed for the committee’s work.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: SC constitutes standing committee on judicial well-being