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 moreA Sepoy in the Indian Army was tried by Summary Court Martial on charges of assaulting a superior officer and using abusive language toward a Subedar. He was acquitted of the second charge but convicted of the first, and was dismissed from service and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. He had asked his Commanding Officer for permission to engage a civilian lawyer to assist him, since he was effectively facing his own Commanding Officer in the proceedings, but this was refused on the ground that civilian legal assistance was permitted only in cases carrying a possible death sentence. The Armed Forces Tribunal rejected his challenge to the punishment, and he appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Commanding Officer had misapplied the law: Regulation 479 (restricting civilian advocates to death-penalty cases) applies to General Court Martials, but Rule 129 of the Army Rules, 1954, which specifically governs Summary Court Martials, entitles the accused to be assisted by a legal adviser or any other person of his choice as a matter of right ("may" meaning the accused has the option). Distinguishing an earlier precedent (Major G.S. Sodhi) where no prejudice was shown because a defending officer had still been provided, the Court found that here the appellant, after seven years of service and facing his own Commanding Officer, was denied legal assistance at his own expense for no valid reason, causing clear and demonstrable prejudice since both his livelihood and liberty were at stake. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside both the Armed Forces Tribunal's decision and the Summary Court Martial's punishment, solely on the ground of this natural-justice violation, while leaving it open to the authorities to take further lawful steps if they wished.
In a Summary Court Martial, a serviceman has a rule-based right to seek legal assistance of his own choosing at his own expense, and denying that right, especially when he is pitted against his own commanding officer, amounts to a violation of natural justice that can void the resulting punishment, regardless of the severity of the charge.
