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 case arose from the 2010 derailment of the Jnaneshwari Express in West Bengal, allegedly caused by sabotage of the railway track by Maoist sympathisers protesting the deployment of security forces in the area, killing about 148 people and injuring 170 others. The accused persons (charged under the IPC (including Section 302, murder) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)) were granted bail by the Calcutta High Court after roughly a dozen years in custody, on the basis of Section 436-A CrPC (a cap on undertrial detention) and their fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21, since the trial begun in 2010 still had many witnesses left to examine 15 years later. The CBI, as investigating agency, appealed against the grant of bail to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 436-A CrPC (and its equivalent under the new BNSS) does not apply here because the accused faced charges carrying a possible death sentence, so the High Court had erred in relying on it for that reason. However, on the separate ground of Article 21 (prolonged incarceration and the right to a speedy trial), the Court held that even in grave offences such as this one, individual liberty must be weighed against the gravity of the crime, and where trial delays are not attributable to the accused, prolonged pre-trial detention (here, over a decade) can itself justify bail. Finding no evidence that the accused had misused their liberty during the years they were out on bail, and no real threat of absconding, the Court declined to cancel the bail, while clarifying the High Court's legal error on Section 436-A. The Court also issued detailed directions, both specific to this case and general directions applicable nationwide ("in rem"), for expediting UAPA trials, including day-to-day hearings, minimising adjournments, periodic monitoring by High Courts, and ensuring undertrials have access to legal aid.
Even in serious cases involving offences that could attract the death penalty, prolonged pre-trial detention without a realistic prospect of a speedy trial can violate an undertrial's constitutional right to liberty under Article 21, but this protection operates independently of statutory bail-limitation provisions like Section 436-A CrPC, which do not apply where death is a possible punishment.
