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 moreAshraf Hussain Choudhary and his wife Adaliu Chawang were arrested in April 2024 after a joint police search of a vehicle in Nagaland turned up 239 grams of heroin, and a co-accused implicated Adaliu Chawang in earlier drug supply as well. While the couple was still in judicial custody awaiting trial, the Nagaland government invoked preventive detention against them under the 1988 Act, detaining them beyond their ordinary custody so as to pre-empt future drug trafficking. The detenus' brother, Mortuza Hussain Choudhary, challenged the detention orders before the Gauhati High Court, which dismissed the writ petitions, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that preventive detention is a "draconian" exception to ordinary criminal process and must strictly satisfy the constitutional safeguards in Article 22. It found the detention orders invalid on two independent grounds: first, there was no cogent, non-speculative material showing a real likelihood that the detenus, who had not even applied for bail at the time, would be released on bail and resume trafficking, as required by settled precedent (Kamarunnissa, Rekha, Paul Manickam); and second, the grounds of detention and supporting documents were served only in English and merely orally explained in Nagamese, even though the detenus were not conversant in English, violating the Constitution Bench ruling in Harikisan that a detenu must receive the grounds in a language and script they can actually understand. The Court also faulted the detaining authority for mechanically endorsing the police's proposal instead of independently recording her own "satisfaction" with separate grounds, as the statute requires. It set aside the Gauhati High Court's judgment, quashed the detention orders, and ordered the detenus released forthwith (unless needed in another case).
Preventive detention cannot be used as a backdoor to keep someone locked up once they are already in judicial custody unless the authorities show real, specific evidence that the person is likely to get bail and reoffend, and the detained person must always be given the grounds of detention in a language they actually understand, not just handed English paperwork with a verbal gloss.
