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, complainant in a murder case (FIR under Sections 302, 201, 364, 120-B/34 IPC) in Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, sought cancellation of the accused's bail after the accused allegedly began threatening prosecution witnesses in violation of his bail conditions: two fresh FIRs were even registered by a threatened witness. Instead of deciding the cancellation application on merits, the Allahabad High Court disposed of it by directing the complainant to instead seek relief under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, reasoning that scheme could address the witness's safety concerns.
The Supreme Court held this was legally wrong: the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 is a remedial/curative executive mechanism for protecting witnesses, and is not a substitute for a court's judicial duty to decide bail cancellation on established legal principles when there is a clear breach of bail conditions. The Court traced the legislative history of the Witness Protection Scheme and reiterated the settled law on when bail can be cancelled (tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, breach of conditions, etc.) It further noted, with concern, that the Allahabad High Court had passed at least 40 near-identical "cyclostyled" orders over two years redirecting complainants to the Witness Protection Scheme instead of deciding cancellation applications: a practice the Court deprecated, also criticizing Public Prosecutors for endorsing this approach instead of assisting the court properly. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the High Court to decide the bail cancellation application afresh on its merits within four weeks, after calling for an investigation report on the fresh FIRs.
A witness-protection remedy is meant to safeguard witnesses, not to let courts sidestep their duty to properly examine and rule on a bail-cancellation application when there is credible evidence that an accused is violating bail conditions by threatening witnesses.
