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 petitioner, a Member of the Bihar Legislative Council (MLC) and Chief Whip of the Opposition, used derogatory language and gestures against the Chief Minister on the floor of the House during a debate. The House's Ethics Committee investigated (after the petitioner repeatedly sought exemptions and delayed appearing before it) and recommended his expulsion, which the House approved by majority vote; a co-accused MLC involved in the same incident was given only a two-day suspension. The petitioner challenged his expulsion before the Supreme Court, arguing it was procedurally unfair and grossly disproportionate, while the State argued the petition was barred outright because Article 212(1) of the Constitution shields internal legislative proceedings from being questioned in court.
The Supreme Court held that Article 212(1) bars challenges only to irregularities of internal procedure, not to violations of fundamental rights, so the petition was maintainable and the Court could examine whether the punishment was disproportionate. On the merits, it found the punishment of outright expulsion, compared to the two-day suspension given to another member for similar conduct, was excessive and violated the principle of proportionality under Articles 14 and 21. Rather than sending the matter back to the Ethics Committee (which would cause further delay and hardship, especially with the petitioner's term ending in 2026), the Court used its special powers under Article 142 to do complete justice: it treated the roughly seven months the petitioner had already spent expelled as equivalent to a suspension, ordered his immediate reinstatement (though without back pay for that period), and quashed the Election Commission's notification for a by-election to fill his "vacant" seat.
A legislature's internal disciplinary powers are not entirely beyond the reach of the courts, while courts won't police mere procedural irregularities inside a House, they can and will step in when a punishment is so disproportionate that it violates a member's fundamental rights, and the Supreme Court can use its special Article 142 powers to grant complete, practical relief instead of prolonging the process.
