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 complainant, who had been prosecuting certain police officers for alleged illegal activities, accused those officers (including the appellants) of retaliating by registering false cases against him, illegally detaining and assaulting him on two separate occasions in 1999, stripping and torturing him, stealing his belongings, and later defaming him through a magazine publication of illegally taken photographs. He filed a private criminal complaint years later, and a Magistrate took cognisance and summoned the accused officers for offences including voluntarily causing grievous hurt, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation. The accused officers argued the prosecution was barred because no prior government sanction had been obtained under Section 197 CrPC/Section 170 of the Police Act, but the Sessions Court and High Court both rejected this and allowed the prosecution to proceed.
The Supreme Court held that the acts alleged, even though grave and involving excess of authority, arose in the course of the officers' investigation of criminal cases pending against the complainant (who had himself been declared a "rowdy sheeter"), and therefore had a reasonable nexus to the discharge of official duty. Relying on its own precedents (Virupaxappa and D. Devaraja), the Court reiterated that a police officer's excess or overreach in performing official duties does not by itself strip away the statutory protection requiring prior sanction before prosecution: that protection is defeated only when the act has no reasonable connection to official functions at all. Since no such sanction had been obtained, the Magistrate's cognisance was legally vitiated from the outset. The Court also weighed practical considerations (the alleged incidents were from 1999-2000, three of the six accused had since died, and the two surviving appellants (aged 71 and 64) had long retired) concluding no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution, and quashed the proceedings against them.
A criminal prosecution against a police officer or public servant for acts connected to their official duties, even alleged abuses of power, generally cannot proceed without the government's prior sanction; mere excess of authority does not remove this legal safeguard unless the act has no real connection to the officer's job at all.
