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 moreIn the long-running coal block allocation ("Coalgate") PIL, the Supreme Court had earlier found it "completely inappropriate" that the then CBI Director, Mr. Ranjit Sinha, had met persons accused in the coal block allocation cases without the investigating officer or team present. Concerned that such meetings may have influenced the investigation and the charge-sheets or closure reports filed, the Court asked a retired IPS officer, Mr. M.L. Sharma, to head a committee and report on the allegations. After receiving that report and hearing arguments, including from Mr. Sinha's counsel, the Court had to decide the petitioners' specific prayer that a Special Investigating Team (SIT) be appointed to probe the alleged abuse of authority.
Having examined Mr. Sharma's report, the Court held that a prima facie case had "definitely been made out" for an investigation into abuse of authority by Mr. Ranjit Sinha aimed at scuttling CBI enquiries, investigations and prosecutions in the coal block cases. Rather than appointing an entirely outside body, the Court decided, since there had since been a change in CBI leadership, to repose its faith in the CBI itself and directed the Director, CBI to constitute a Special Investigating Team (with two CBI officers of his choice, legal assistance from a court-nominated special public prosecutor, and the Chief Vigilance Commissioner kept in the loop) to carry out the investigation. The Court was careful to clarify it was expressing no opinion on the merits of the underlying allegations or the contents of the Sharma report beyond this prima facie finding, and directed that the CBI report back on the composition of the team and the time needed, stressing the matter's considerable public importance.
Even the head of a premier investigating agency is not above scrutiny: if a court finds a prima facie case that an investigating officer's own conduct may have compromised an investigation, it can direct a fresh, specially constituted probe into that officer's conduct, while still leaving the question of guilt or innocence to be determined only after that investigation is completed.
