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 had filed a criminal complaint against a police officer (respondent No. 2) alleging offences of voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint, theft, and intentional insult (Sections 323, 341, 379 and 504 IPC). A Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint, but the Patna High Court later quashed the proceedings, holding that no prior government sanction had been obtained to prosecute the police officer and that there were contradictions in witness statements.
The Supreme Court held both grounds relied on by the High Court to be legally unsound. First, no sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required because the alleged acts (causing hurt, theft, restraint, insult) had no nexus with the discharge of the officer's official duties as a police officer: sanction is needed only when the alleged offence has some connection to official functions. Second, the High Court had no jurisdiction, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, to weigh witness statements and find inconsistencies in them: that kind of fact-finding belongs to the trial court, not to quashing proceedings. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's order and restored the complaint case for trial on its merits, while clarifying it had not made any findings on the actual facts of the case.
A public servant cannot claim the shield of "prior sanction" against prosecution unless the alleged wrongdoing is actually connected to the discharge of their official duties, and a High Court cannot shut down a criminal complaint at the threshold by assessing the reliability of witnesses, since that is a matter for the trial itself.
