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, facing several old criminal cases (including under the Arms Act and IPC provisions relating to forgery and cheating, dating back to FIRs from 2007), sought to have the proceedings quashed by the Allahabad High Court under its inherent powers. The common ground across all the connected appeals was that the appellant is a sitting or former Member of Parliament/Legislative Assembly, and that the mandatory procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, requiring the State's application to withdraw prosecution against such public representatives to be placed before, and permitted by, the High Court, with reasons recorded: had not been followed. The High Court declined to exercise its Section 482 jurisdiction and refused to quash the proceedings.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that under the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay framework, any decision to withdraw a criminal prosecution against a sitting or former MP/MLA must go through a specific process: the Public Prosecutor's reasons for withdrawal, along with the case record, must be placed before the High Court, which must apply its judicial mind and pass a reasoned order granting or refusing permission. Since this mandatory procedural safeguard had admittedly not been followed in the appellant's case, the Court held that the High Court could not be faulted for declining to quash the proceedings on that basis, and it dismissed all the connected appeals. The Court expressly clarified that it had not examined the merits of the underlying criminal allegations, leaving every defence, including at the stage of discharge or trial, open to the appellant.
Even sitting or former legislators cannot have criminal prosecutions against them withdrawn informally: any withdrawal requires the Public Prosecutor's reasoned application to go before the High Court for judicial scrutiny and a reasoned order, and skipping that safeguard means the case must continue to trial regardless of how old the FIR is.
