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 practising advocate, intimidated and threatened a Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Etah, U.P., in open court on two occasions in 2003, boasting of criminal connections and warning the judge against ruling against his clients. The Allahabad High Court convicted him of criminal contempt, sentenced him to two months' simple imprisonment with a fine, barred him from appearing in courts at Etah, and directed the Bar Council of U.P. to examine disciplinary action, which the Bar Council never took. The Supreme Court admitted the appeal in 2006, stayed the imprisonment, and referred the matter to a larger bench because it raised a broader question: whether a lawyer convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude could continue to practise law.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but set aside the imprisonment given the appellant's advanced age, while keeping the fine and the bar on his appearing in Etah courts until he purges the contempt. Interpreting Section 24A of the Advocates Act, the Court held that a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude (including criminal contempt) automatically suspends an advocate's enrollment for two years, and that this bar applies even after enrollment, not just at the entry stage. Because the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and the Bar Council of India had both failed for over a decade to act on the misconduct despite being notified, the Court exercised its own appellate disciplinary power under Section 38 of the Advocates Act and additionally suspended the appellant's licence for a further five years. It closed by asking the Law Commission of India to review the regulatory framework governing the legal profession generally, flagging systemic inaction by Bar Councils.
A lawyer who threatens or intimidates a judge faces not just contempt punishment but automatic suspension of their licence to practise under the Advocates Act, and if the Bar Councils fail to discipline their own members, the Supreme Court will step in directly to protect the integrity of the courts.
