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 petitioner, acting under Article 32, sought a Supreme Court order to ban the Malayalam novel "Meesha" (Moustache), serialised in the weekly magazine Mathrubhumi, claiming a dialogue in it was derogatory to temple-going women and offensive to a particular faith. He asked the Court to direct seizure of all copies of the magazine and a permanent ban on further publication of the novel, and sought guidelines for the government to regulate such content generally.
The Supreme Court examined the specific passage complained of, the overall plot of the novel, and settled case law on obscenity and artistic freedom (including the "Bandit Queen" and "Padmaavat" precedents). It held that a creative work must be read as a whole and with "empathetic" sensibility, not dissected for isolated lines, and that the dialogue in question, however provocative to some readers, did not meet the legal threshold of obscenity or defamation needed to justify banning a book under Article 19(2). The Court emphasised that courts should be extremely cautious before curbing artistic and literary expression, since banning books on subjective offence chills creativity generally. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.
Courts will not ban a book or literary work merely because some readers find a passage offensive or distasteful; a restriction on free speech under Article 19(2) requires the content to pose a real, direct, and serious threat (such as genuine obscenity or defamation), not just hurt sentiment.
