Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreThe 4th respondent in a Kerala criminal case faced charges under Sections 195A and 506 IPC. The Public Prosecutor applied to withdraw from the prosecution, relying mainly on a government "no objection" notification, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate granted consent. The appellant, a third party aggrieved by the withdrawal, challenged this before the Kerala High Court, which dismissed his revision petitions on the ground that he was a stranger to the case with no standing to object. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a Magistrate granting consent under Section 321 CrPC must ensure the Public Prosecutor has independently applied his own mind to the material on record and formed a genuine opinion that withdrawal serves the public interest: he cannot simply act as a "post office" relaying the government's instructions. Reviewing the record, the Court found the Prosecutor here had done no more than place the government's notification before the Magistrate without any independent assessment, and that the Magistrate had improperly delved into the merits instead of applying the correct legal test. The Court also held the High Court was wrong to treat the appellant as having no standing, since he had properly brought a serious irregularity to its notice. It therefore set aside both the High Court's and the Magistrate's orders and sent the matter back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to reconsider the withdrawal application afresh, correctly applying the law.
A public prosecutor cannot withdraw a criminal case merely because the government directs it: the law requires the prosecutor to independently examine the case and form a genuine, good-faith opinion that withdrawal serves justice and the public interest, and courts must verify this before granting consent.
