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 moreAn FIR was registered in 2013 against the appellants for offences including gang rape (Section 376D IPC) and criminal intimidation, following which the investigation was transferred between police units on the complainant's request. The Investigating Officer submitted a closure report in 2014 finding no offence made out, citing contradictions in the complainant's statements; the complainant did not contest this before the Magistrate, and the closure report was accepted. Years later, without any court order or leave of the Magistrate, a state government communication and a police order directed "further investigation" under Section 173(8) CrPC into the same FIR, which the appellants challenged before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench); the High Court dismissed their writ petition, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The central question was whether police can order further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC after a closure report has been accepted by the court, without first obtaining the Magistrate's leave. The Supreme Court held that once a closure report is accepted and no protest petition is filed, the police/investigating agency cannot unilaterally direct further investigation on its own authority: such a direction, especially one issued at the administrative level (by a Secretary or Superintendent of Police) rather than judicially, exceeds the agency's jurisdiction and undermines the court's authority. Distinguishing the precedent relied on by the State (Dharam Pal), where the earlier case involved a court-ordered transfer of investigation to the CBI, the Court found no comparable judicial sanction here and held the impugned administrative directions could not stand. Accordingly, the High Court's judgment and the underlying communication/order directing further investigation were quashed, and the appeal was allowed, without prejudice to any pending criminal revision relating to the same FIR.
Once a police closure report on an FIR is accepted by a court and unchallenged, the police cannot on their own administrative initiative reopen "further investigation" into the same case: that step requires the sanction of the Magistrate or a court, not just an internal government order.
