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 moreIn an earlier ruling in this very criminal appeal (Jitender @ Kalla, dated 20 February 2025), a two-judge Bench had raised concerns about how Senior Advocates are designated by courts, a process earlier governed by the Supreme Court's own 2017 decision in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India ("Indira Jaising-1"), which had set up a points-based assessment system (practice duration, judgments, publications, and a personal interview). The Chief Justice of India then constituted this three-judge Bench specifically to reconsider that designation process, effectively converting the case into a broader review of Indira Jaising-1 and a follow-up ruling ("Indira Jaising-2"), alongside a related writ petition filed years earlier by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising seeking reform of the designation system.
The Court held that the 100-point objective scoring system (with separate marks for years of practice, reported judgments, publications, and interview performance) created by Indira Jaising-1 was unworkable in practice and should be scrapped. It ruled that the decision to confer Senior Advocate status should rest with the Full Court (or Full House of a High Court) based on its collective assessment, not a rigid scoring formula, with voting by secret ballot only where the Full Court cannot reach a consensus. It directed all High Courts to frame fresh Rules within four months in line with specified guidelines, including that individual judges cannot informally recommend candidates, at least one designation exercise must be held every calendar year, and the existing 10-year minimum practice requirement stays unchanged, while designations already made under the old system remain valid.
Rules meant to make an important professional recognition process more "objective" can end up being unworkable if they are too mechanical; the Court's answer here was to give the collective judgment of the Full Court a central role again, rather than trying to reduce advocate ability to a numeric score.
