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 moreRTI activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal sought information from the Supreme Court's Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) on two fronts: (i) correspondence relating to an alleged attempt by a Union Minister to influence a Madras High Court judge, and (ii) whether Supreme Court judges had filed asset declarations with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) pursuant to a 1997 in-house resolution, and details of those declarations. The CPIO refused disclosure, but the Central Information Commission, and later the Delhi High Court (both a Single Judge and a Full Bench), ruled in Agarwal's favour. The Supreme Court Registry appealed to the Supreme Court itself, raising the fundamental question of whether the office of the CJI is a "public authority" under the RTI Act and whether judicial independence and privacy could override disclosure.
The Constitution Bench unanimously held that the office of the CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act and is not separate from the Supreme Court as an institution, so it is bound to furnish information subject to the Act's exemptions. It rejected the argument that the CJI holds judges' asset declarations in a "fiduciary" capacity, meaning that exemption did not apply. However, the Court held that the right to information is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to privacy, particularly under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act (which protects personal information unless larger public interest justifies disclosure): this balancing test must be applied case-by-case rather than through a blanket rule either way. On the specific appeals: the Court dismissed the CPIO's appeal regarding disclosure of the fact that judges had filed asset declarations (upholding the High Court), but on the appeals seeking the actual contents of correspondence and third-party information, it remitted the matter back to the CPIO to re-examine after following the notice-to-third-parties procedure under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, since affected third parties had not been heard.
The RTI Act applies even to the office of the Chief Justice of India, and judicial independence is not an automatic shield against transparency, but RTI disclosure is always balanced against personal privacy on a case-by-case basis rather than being granted or refused as a blanket rule, and third parties whose information is sought must be given a hearing before such information is released.
