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 public-interest writ petition challenged the Delhi Police's practice of repeatedly re-issuing successive 60-day prohibitory orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C., effectively imposing a near-permanent ban on public meetings, dharnas, and demonstrations across the Parliament House/Boat Club area of Central Delhi, arguing this infringed the fundamental right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b). In connected appeals, protestors challenged a separate order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that had directed shifting all protests away from Jantar Mantar Road to Ramlila Maidan, after local residents complained that years of round-the-clock sloganeering, loudspeakers, makeshift tents, animals, and inadequate sanitation on that road were destroying their right to a peaceful life and health under Article 21.
The Court held that the right to peaceful assembly and protest under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) is a vital feature of democracy that must be protected, and that the question of whether a protestor's cause is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant: the right to voice dissent, even by a minority, must be respected. However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against other citizens' competing fundamental rights, including residents' Article 21 right to a healthy, peaceful living environment, which was being violated by the de facto permanent occupation of Jantar Mantar Road with noise and unsanitary conditions. Rather than accepting either a blanket ban (as the repeated Section 144 orders effectively created) or an outright prohibition (as the NGT had ordered by banishing protests entirely to Ramlila Maidan), the Court held that the correct constitutional approach is regulation, not prohibition, directing the Delhi Police Commissioner to frame fresh guidelines within two months permitting protests in a designated, regulated manner (including at Jantar Mantar/Boat Club areas), with sensible limits on numbers, noise, timing, routes, and duration, rather than banning assembly altogether.
The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right that authorities cannot extinguish through indefinite rolling prohibitory orders or by banishing all demonstrations to a single remote location; the constitutionally correct balance between protestors' rights and the rights of affected residents is to regulate protests sensibly, not to ban them outright.
