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 actor, producer and director of the Malayalam film "Oru Adaar Love" approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 after an FIR was registered in Telangana accusing them of insulting religious sentiments under Section 295A IPC. The complaint arose from a promotional song sequence featuring the actress winking, set to "Manikya Malaraya Poovi": a traditional mappila folk song about the Prophet's wife Khadeeja, which had been sung in parts of Kerala since 1978. The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and a direction that no similar complaint be entertained over the same song.
The Court examined Section 295A IPC and the Constitution Bench ruling in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., which had held that the provision only penalises insults to religion made with a "deliberate and malicious intention" to outrage religious feelings, not every careless or unintentional act. Applying that standard, the Court found that the picturisation of the song, built around a wink, did not amount to a deliberate or malicious insult to any religion, noting the song had already been publicly available on YouTube since February 2018 without incident. Relying also on precedent protecting artistic and creative expression in films, the Court held Section 295A was not attracted on these facts, allowed the writ petition, quashed the FIR, and additionally directed that no fresh FIR or complaint be entertained against the petitioners over the same song.
Criminal provisions penalising insults to religion require proof of a deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings: an artistic or creative portrayal that merely offends someone's sensibilities, without that intent, does not attract criminal liability, and courts will quash FIRs that stretch such provisions beyond their constitutional limits.
