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 moreFollowing a tip-off about an illegal sex-determination racket run by one Dr. Abdul Kadir, health authorities in Gurugram set up a decoy operation: a pregnant woman posing as a patient was taken, with a "shadow witness," to get an ultrasound. Dr. Kadir arranged for Dr. Naresh Kumar Garg, a radiologist at Vatika Medicare, to conduct the scan without signing the mandatory Form F, making any register entry, or disclosing the sex of the foetus. A complaint and criminal case were registered against Dr. Garg under the PCPNDT Act, and he sought to have the complaint quashed, arguing procedural irregularities in how the raid and decoy operation were conducted.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, refusing to quash the criminal complaint against Dr. Garg. It rejected his argument that the raid was vitiated because a doctor involved in setting up the decoy (Dr. Saryu Sharma) had also sat on an advisory committee, holding that Rule 18A of the PCPNDT Rules only bars persons who are part of the "investigating machinery" from advisory roles, and Dr. Sharma did not fall in that category; in any event, the Rule was only directory, not mandatory, so its breach would make a proceeding irregular rather than void. The Court emphasized the serious social harm of female foeticide and sex-selective practices, and noted it was prima facie established that the appellant conducted the ultrasound without maintaining required records or disclosing the sex determination: issues that must be tested at trial, not resolved by quashing the complaint at a threshold stage. The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits and kept all questions of evidence and reliability open for trial.
Courts are reluctant to quash a criminal complaint at the threshold, especially in sex-selection/foeticide cases treated as matters of serious public concern, when there is prima facie material connecting the accused to the offence; procedural objections about the composition of investigating or raiding teams must show an actual breach of a mandatory rule, not just a technical irregularity, to succeed.
