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 Kerala High Court had banned public meetings on roads and road margins for traffic safety reasons. Days after the ban was confirmed on appeal, the appellant, a lawyer and former legislator, delivered a public speech calling the judgment "worth only grass," calling the judges abusive/pejorative names, and urging the judges to resign if they had "any self-respect." The Kerala High Court's Division Bench convicted him of criminal contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, sentencing him to six months' simple imprisonment plus a Rs.2,000 fine, and he appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court distinguished between permissible criticism of a judgment (even strong criticism, such as calling a verdict wrong or saying "judges live in glass houses") and language that scandalizes the court or incites the public to disobey its orders. It found the appellant's use of insulting epithets and his call for the judges to resign went beyond legitimate free speech and amounted to an intentional, calculated attempt to lower the court's dignity and obstruct justice, especially since he refused to apologise and the speech was aimed at inciting a largely rural, less-literate audience against the judiciary. The Court upheld the conviction for criminal contempt as correct, but considered the circumstances sufficiently mitigating to reduce the sentence from six months to simple imprisonment for four weeks, with no costs imposed.
Freedom of speech protects reasoned, even sharply worded, criticism of a court's judgment, but it does not extend to abusive language or calls for judges to quit: such conduct, especially when aimed at inciting public disobedience of court orders, can be punished as criminal contempt regardless of the speaker's public standing.
