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 moreBSNL and three of its officers were prosecuted for engaging unregistered private security guards, in violation of a Maharashtra welfare scheme for security guards. The officers argued their prosecution was invalid because it was launched without the prior government "sanction" required under Section 197 CrPC for prosecuting public servants acting in their official capacity. The High Court rejected this defence, holding that employees of government companies like BSNL do not get this sanction protection, and the officers appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that two of the officers had, before the complaint was filed, formally opted to become permanent BSNL employees (giving up their earlier government cadre status), so they could no longer claim "public servant" protection requiring sanction: their challenge on this ground failed. For the third officer, whose exact employment status (deputation versus absorption) was unclear from the record, the Court left that specific factual question open to be decided by the trial court once evidence was led, rather than deciding it itself. On the central legal question, whether sanction under Section 197 CrPC was needed here, the Court relied on settled precedent that employees of public sector corporations are generally not entitled to this protection. The appeal itself was dismissed, with a direction that the long-pending (since 2003) trial be concluded within one year.
Employees of government-owned companies (like BSNL) generally cannot claim the special "prior sanction" protection available to actual government servants, even though such companies may otherwise qualify as "State" under the Constitution: this status depends on the specific nature of one's employment, not just where one works.
