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 moreThis batch of writ petitions and appeals (led by Nikesh Tarachand Shah, with several other connected petitions and appeals clubbed in) challenged Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002. Section 45(1) imposed two strict additional conditions before a person accused of a scheduled money-laundering offence could get bail: the Public Prosecutor had to be given an opportunity to oppose bail, and the court had to be satisfied the accused was not guilty and unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. These conditions applied only to offences listed in Part A of the PMLA Schedule where the alleged amount exceeded a certain monetary threshold, which the petitioners argued was arbitrary. Many of the petitioners/appellants had been denied bail by lower courts and High Courts solely because of these "twin conditions."
The Supreme Court held that Section 45(1), insofar as it imposed these twin conditions for bail, was unconstitutional, as it violated Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (personal liberty) of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that classifying offences for the purposes of bail based purely on a monetary threshold (Rs. 30 lakh and above triggering Part A, below which there was no such restriction) had no rational nexus with the object of granting or denying bail, making the classification arbitrary. Having struck down Section 45 as a whole, the Court set aside all orders before it in which bail had been denied on the strength of the twin conditions, and remanded those bail matters back to the respective courts to be decided afresh on merits without applying Section 45's twin conditions, directing that these be heard urgently given that the persons involved were in custody.
A law cannot make it harder to get bail for one category of accused than another based on an arbitrary yardstick (like a monetary threshold) that has no real connection to flight risk or public safety: bail conditions must have a rational basis, or courts can strike them down as unconstitutional even in serious economic-offence laws like PMLA.
