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 respondent was an accused in a serious criminal case (including charges of murder and attempt to murder) filed by the appellant-informant. The respondent's bail had already been granted and then cancelled by the Supreme Court twice in earlier rounds of litigation, most recently by a detailed judgment dated 17.05.2024 which left open only a limited window to seek bail again if "new circumstances" emerged. After his fresh bail plea was rejected by the trial court, the respondent approached the Allahabad High Court, which granted him bail in June 2025 citing prison overcrowding and delay in trial, prompting the informant to appeal to the Supreme Court again.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order granting bail failed to properly engage with the Supreme Court's earlier 17.05.2024 judgment, which had already examined all relevant facts in detail and closed off those very grounds, and that the "new circumstances" the respondent relied on before the High Court were not genuinely new. The Court found the High Court's reasoning, invoking generalized observations about "one-sided investigation by police" and prison overcrowding, was unwarranted and had no real connection to the specific case, especially given the seriousness of the offence. Because the trial was already well advanced with most prosecution witnesses examined, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order, directed the respondent to surrender within three weeks, and further clarified that he would not be entitled to seek bail again until the trial concluded, though he could approach the Supreme Court directly if the trial was unreasonably delayed through no fault of his own.
When the Supreme Court cancels bail after examining a case in detail, lower courts must give that ruling full deference and cannot re-grant bail on generic or previously-considered grounds dressed up as "new circumstances": bail orders still need genuine, case-specific reasoning even when courts are cautioned against writing lengthy, evidence-heavy orders.
