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 moreThis is part of an ongoing suo motu (self-initiated) Supreme Court case on prison and sentencing policy. In this particular order, with the assistance of an amicus curiae, the Court examined the power of state governments to remit (reduce or end early) the sentences of convicts under Section 432 of the CrPC, addressing questions like whether a convict must formally apply for remission, what conditions can be attached, when remission can be revoked, and whether reasons must be recorded.
The Court held that when a state has an existing remission policy, it must proactively consider every eligible convict under that policy: convicts need not file an individual application if a policy already exists. It ruled that all states lacking such a policy must formulate one within two months. The Court also held that conditions attached to remission must be reasonable, non-vague, and geared toward genuine rehabilitation, that remission cannot be cancelled without a show-cause notice and a hearing (natural justice), and that merely registering a new criminal case against a released convict is not automatically grounds to cancel their remission: the seriousness of any alleged breach must be assessed case-by-case. Both a grant and a refusal of remission must come with recorded reasons, communicated to the convict along with a notice of their right to challenge the decision.
The government's power to release convicts early through remission is not unfettered discretion. It must follow existing policy where one exists, give reasons for its decisions, and cannot revoke a convict's freedom without a fair hearing, reinforcing that even convicted persons retain constitutional protections against arbitrary state action.
