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 appellant, President of the Bengaluru unit of the Popular Front of India (PFI), was one of five men charged over the 2016 hacking death of an RSS worker, with the NIA alleging a conspiracy under the IPC, Arms Act, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. After his application to be discharged from the case under Section 227 CrPC was rejected by the trial court, which found frequent phone contact between him and the other accused and his admitted PFI leadership sufficient for a prima facie case, the Karnataka High Court dismissed his writ challenge too. He then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the evidence against him personally was thin and based only on suspicion.
The Supreme Court reiterated settled principles on discharge applications: a trial judge is not a "post office" for the prosecution, must sift the evidence to see if a prima facie case exists, but should not conduct a mini-trial weighing evidence as at a full hearing: grave suspicion, properly unexplained, justifies framing charges and proceeding to trial. Reviewing the charge-sheet, the Court noted materials including frequent telephone exchanges between the appellant and co-accused around the time of the murder, a seized banner bearing all the accused's photographs, and a co-accused's disclosure implicating the appellant as a mastermind, which together supported at least a prima facie conspiracy case. Since assessing the ultimate truth of these allegations was a matter for trial, not for a discharge hearing, the Court found no error in the concurrent decisions of the trial court and High Court. It dismissed the appeal, directing that its observations should not prejudice either side during the actual trial.
At the stage of framing charges, a court only checks whether the evidence raises a prima facie or "grave suspicion" against the accused: it does not weigh the evidence as if conducting the trial itself, so an accused cannot get the case thrown out merely by arguing the evidence is weak or circumstantial at this early stage.
