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 appellant, a national political party office-bearer, was booked in an FIR after holding press conferences alleging that the wife of Assam's Chief Minister held multiple foreign passports and undisclosed foreign assets/investments; the complainant alleged these documents were forged. The Gauhati High Court refused him anticipatory bail, and separately, a magistrate had earlier rejected the State's request for a non-bailable warrant, finding the grounds were based on presumption rather than evidence. The appellant challenged the High Court's refusal before the Supreme Court, and public statements by the Assam Chief Minister about pursuing the appellant (including threats of custody "till the last days of his life") became part of the record.
The Supreme Court, applying the balancing test from the classic precedent Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, held that while investigations must proceed with integrity and full cooperation from the accused, an individual's Article 21 liberty cannot be jeopardized lightly, especially where the underlying dispute prima facie appears colored by political rivalry rather than requiring custodial interrogation. The Court found the High Court's refusal of bail was not based on a correct appreciation of the record and improperly shifted the burden onto the accused, and it also found the High Court's reliance on a separate statutory provision (Section 339 BNS) unsupported by any actual allegation of that offence. It therefore allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions: cooperating with the investigation, appearing when summoned, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without court permission, while clarifying that its observations on the underlying material were only for the bail decision and should not influence the trial court on the case's merits.
Courts deciding anticipatory bail must balance the state's investigative interests against personal liberty under Article 21, and will scrutinize whether allegations appear driven by political rivalry rather than genuine grounds for custodial interrogation: a higher threshold applies before liberty is curtailed in cases with visible political overtones, and any bail grant is without prejudice to how the trial itself is ultimately decided.
