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 moreAn asbestos-manufacturing company filed a criminal defamation complaint after allegedly defamatory articles about it were posted on an online group called "Ban Asbestos India," hosted on a platform operated by Google. Google India was summoned by the Magistrate as an accused for abetting defamation (along with the group's coordinator), on the theory that it failed to remove the posts despite being notified. Google India sought to have the summoning order quashed under Section 482 CrPC, arguing it was merely an intermediary (not even the correct corporate entity, since the website was run by its US parent) and was protected from liability for third-party content.
The Supreme Court held that whether Google India (as opposed to its US parent, Google LLC) was actually the relevant "intermediary," and whether it genuinely had the technical power to remove the posts, were disputed factual questions that could not be resolved at the quashing stage and must go to trial. On the key legal question, the Court held that Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, as it stood before its 2009 amendment (the version in force when the posts were made), did not grant intermediaries protection from criminal liability for offences like defamation under Sections 499/500 IPC: that broader "safe harbour" protection only came with the later amendment and the Supreme Court's subsequent reading-down of the law in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. It set aside the High Court's specific findings on Google's alleged refusal to act on the takedown notice (since that too involved disputed facts), but otherwise declined to quash the proceedings, directing the Magistrate to proceed with the trial while leaving all other contentions open for the parties to raise there.
Internet intermediaries are not automatically shielded from liability for defamatory content posted by third parties on their platforms: the extent of legal protection depends on which version of the law applied at the relevant time, and disputed questions like whether a company qualifies as the "intermediary" and whether it had the real ability to remove content are matters for trial, not something a court will resolve by simply quashing the case at the outset.
