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 moreThis judgment disposed of a large batch of 13 writ petitions (led by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay's petition), two Special Leave Petitions, and several contempt petitions, all broadly concerning "hate speech" and "rumour-mongering." The main writ petitions sought directions to the Union of India to enact or strengthen laws against hate speech (relying on the Law Commission's 267th Report), some petitions specifically arose from communal vilification of Muslims linked to the Tablighi Jamaat congregation during the COVID-19 pandemic, and one connected criminal appeal challenged the dismissal of a complaint seeking registration of an FIR against a Union Minister and an MP over speeches allegedly promoting communal enmity, where lower courts had held that prior government sanction was needed even to register an FIR (not just to prosecute).
On the main writ petitions, the Court held that under the doctrine of separation of powers, courts cannot create new criminal offences or expand criminal liability through judicial directions: that function belongs exclusively to Parliament and State Legislatures. It found that India's existing criminal law (IPC/BNS provisions on promoting enmity, outraging religious sentiments and disturbing public tranquility) already substantively covers hate speech, so the field is not "legislatively unoccupied," and that the real problem raised by petitioners was inconsistent enforcement, not absence of law, which does not justify judicial legislation. The Court declined to issue a continuing mandamus and dismissed the main writ petitions, while urging the Union and legislatures to consider the Law Commission's recommendations on their own initiative. However, on the connected criminal appeal, the Court held that the requirement of prior sanction under Sections 196/197 CrPC (now BNSS) applies only at the stage of taking cognizance, not at the earlier, pre-cognizance stage of registering an FIR or ordering investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, so the Delhi High Court was wrong to hold that a Magistrate cannot direct FIR registration without prior sanction, and that part of the High Court's judgment was set aside. Various contempt petitions were closed as satisfied or given further time to respond.
Courts will not step into the legislature's shoes to create new hate-speech offences, however serious the underlying social problem, when adequate criminal provisions already exist: the remedy for weak enforcement is administrative/legislative reform, not judicial rule-making; separately, citizens seeking an FIR against powerful public officials for alleged hate speech are not blocked at the threshold by the sanction requirement: that requirement only kicks in later, when a court actually takes cognizance for prosecution.
