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 petitioners were Jammu migrants and activists who, on 7.8.2007, planned a peaceful protest march toward Delhi to highlight the plight of around 2,200 migrant families displaced by terrorist attacks between 1996-1999. Near Katra in Jammu & Kashmir, police personnel allegedly beat and manhandled the protesters, including a journalist covering the event, in a brutal manner. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, alleging violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22, and seeking compensation and a special investigation.
The Court held that while the protest had turned unruly at the outset, with protesters pelting stones, the police had crossed the line by continuing to use force well after the crowd had already been brought under control, including continuing to beat the petitioners even after they were overpowered and immobile. Relying on precedents including Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa, the Court reaffirmed that police excess causing a clear violation of fundamental rights gives rise to public-law liability, for which the State (not individual officers) is accountable, and that compensation can be awarded directly under Article 32 for patent and incontrovertible rights violations. Balancing the petitioners' own initial role in the violence against the police's subsequent excess, the Court awarded Rs. 2,00,000 to the lead petitioner and Rs. 1,00,000 each to the other two, to be paid within two months, and disposed of the writ petition on those terms.
Even when a protest turns disorderly, the police are not permitted to use force beyond what is needed to control the situation, continuing to beat protesters after they are already subdued is a violation of fundamental rights for which the State can be made to pay compensation directly.
