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 producers of a certified Bengali film, "Bhobishyoter Bhoot," found that days before its release the Kolkata Police's Intelligence Unit pressured them for an advance private screening over vague fears of "law and order" issues, even though the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had already cleared the film. Despite proceeding with release, the film was pulled from the vast majority of Kolkata theatres within a day, with several exhibitors reporting that local police had told them to stop screening it or face consequences. The producers approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, alleging the State was acting as an unlawful "super-censor" in violation of their fundamental rights to free speech and to carry on business.
The Supreme Court held that once CBFC has certified a film for public exhibition, it is not open to any state authority to obstruct its screening through informal pressure or without using the specific legal powers (such as those under the Cinematograph Act or West Bengal's cinema regulation law) meant for that purpose, and West Bengal admitted it had not invoked any such formal power. The Court found the police had acted wholly outside their lawful authority and had effectively used extra-constitutional means to suppress the film, violating the producers' and viewers' fundamental right to free speech. It confirmed its earlier interim directions protecting the film's screening, directed the State to pay the producers Rs. 20 lakh as compensation for the violation of their fundamental rights, plus Rs. 1 lakh in costs, and allowed the writ petition.
Once a film is legally certified for public viewing, the police or state government cannot informally pressure cinemas into pulling it by invoking vague "law and order" concerns: any restriction must follow the specific law that allows it, with due process. Citizens whose fundamental rights are violated by such unlawful state action can seek, and receive, monetary compensation directly from the Supreme Court.
