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 case began when police in Ahmedabad, investigating a loan-related dispute FIR, directly summoned a defence lawyer under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to "know the true details" of the case after he had obtained bail for his client, even though he was involved only in his professional capacity as counsel, not as a witness to the underlying facts. When the High Court rejected the lawyer's challenge to this summons, a two-judge Supreme Court bench hearing the further appeal identified this as a matter of grave public importance, whether investigating agencies can summon a party's own lawyer for interrogation, and referred it to a larger bench, which then converted it into a suo motu case to comprehensively address the scope of advocate-client privilege and the risk of investigators using such summonses to pressure or intimidate lawyers.
The Court traced the client-advocate privilege codified in Sections 132 to 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (successor to Section 126 of the Evidence Act), holding that this privilege belongs to the client, and an advocate can invoke it on the client's behalf even in the client's absence. It ruled that investigating officers cannot summon an advocate representing an accused merely to extract case details, unless a summons falls squarely within a recognised exception, and even then, such a summons must specify the exact facts justifying the exception and be approved in writing by an officer of at least the rank of Superintendent of Police, with the advocate free to challenge it in court. The Court also held that in-house counsel employed by a company do not enjoy the same evidentiary privilege as independent practising advocates, since their professional independence is compromised by their employment, though their communications to their employer still receive some protection; on the facts, the Court set aside the specific summons issued to the lawyer in the case that triggered the reference.
A lawyer cannot be summoned by police simply to reveal what their client told them in confidence, or as a backdoor way to pressure the defence: such action requires a specific, senior-approved justification and remains subject to judicial review, reinforcing that the right to confidential legal advice is a citizen's protection, not a convenience for investigators to bypass.
