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 was elected President of Thekampatti Panchayat in Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu, in October 2006. His election was challenged before the District Court, Coimbatore on the ground that he had filed a false declaration at the time of nomination, suppressing details of eight criminal chargesheets (for offences including criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts) pending against him, disclosing only one of several related cases. The Tamil Nadu State Election Commission's own notification required candidates to disclose any pending case where cognizance had been taken or charges framed for an offence punishable with two or more years' imprisonment, and it was undisputed that cognizance/charges had been taken before the relevant cut-off date.
The Supreme Court held that non-disclosure of pending criminal cases involving heinous offences, corruption, or moral turpitude at the time of filing nomination is not a mere technicality but a "categorical imperative," because voters are entitled to make an informed choice. Such concealment, the Court held, amounts to "undue influence" and interference with the free exercise of the right to vote, justifying the election being declared null and void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (as applied through the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act), regardless of whether the omission is shown to have actually affected the election result. The appellant's defence that he was only educated up to Class X and believed all the cases were part of one case was rejected. The Court accordingly dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 50,000, upholding the High Court's decision that the election was void for corrupt practice.
Candidates for public office in India have a strict, non-negotiable legal duty to disclose all pending criminal cases (especially serious ones) in their nomination papers; concealing them can get an election declared void even without separate proof that the concealment changed the result, because voters' right to make an informed choice is itself protected by law.
