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 appellant, a political spokesperson, made statements at a press conference about the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, after which the State's Public Prosecutor obtained sanction and filed a defamation complaint against him under Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. (a special procedure for defamation of public servants/authorities) on the very same day sanction was granted. The appellant challenged the maintainability of this prosecution, but the High Court rejected his challenge; during the pendency of this appeal, he was convicted by the trial court under Section 500 IPC and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, with an appeal against that conviction pending before the High Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 199(2) and 199(4) Cr.P.C. require the Public Prosecutor to independently apply his mind and be satisfied that the complaint discloses an offence against a public functionary affecting State interests, as expounded in Subramanian Swamy and other precedents, rather than acting as a rubber stamp. The haste with which the complaint was filed, the very same day sanction was granted, indicated the Public Prosecutor had not genuinely applied his mind to the materials, making the complaint not maintainable on its face. Invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142, the Court held that this defect could not be cured merely because the trial had since concluded in a conviction, and therefore quashed the entire prosecution and set aside the conviction and sentence, also closing the pending High Court appeal and discharging the bail bond.
A special statutory safeguard for prosecutions involving public functionaries, here, the Public Prosecutor's independent satisfaction before filing a complaint, is a mandatory procedural protection, and a prosecution launched without genuinely complying with it can be quashed even after it has already resulted in a conviction.
