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 moreA practising advocate filed a PIL under Article 32 asking the Supreme Court to bar sitting legislators (MPs/MLAs/MLCs) from simultaneously practising as advocates, arguing this created a conflict of interest and amounted to professional misconduct since legislators already draw a public salary. In the alternative, the petitioner asked the Court to strike down Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules (which restricts full-time salaried employees from practising law) as unconstitutional, or extend it to cover legislators. Several intervention applications were filed in support during the case's pendency.
The Court held that neither the Advocates Act, 1961, nor the Bar Council of India Rules framed under it impose any blanket restriction preventing legislators from practising as advocates. Rule 49 was found inapplicable because elected representatives are not "full-time salaried employees" of any person, firm, government, corporation or concern in the sense the rule contemplates. The Bar Council of India itself had taken the position that no such prohibition exists. The Court also held that a legislator's mere status as an elected representative does not by itself establish professional misconduct, that must be pleaded and proved case by case, and declined to read in a restriction the legislature itself had not enacted, citing the principle that courts cannot usurp the legislature's functions. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with the pending interlocutory applications disposed of as well.
Courts will not create a professional disqualification that Parliament and the Bar Council have not themselves enacted; a citizen seeking such a structural bar on elected representatives must pursue it through the legislative or regulatory process, not through a writ petition asking courts to read in a restriction that does not exist in the actual rules.
