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 moreTwo detenus were taken into preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act after being implicated in smuggling roughly 14.2 kilograms of foreign-marked gold bars into India via Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru. The Karnataka High Court upheld the detention orders, and family members of the detenus (the petitioners) approached the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the detention on grounds including inadequate access to CCTV evidence, delay in deciding representations, and lack of authority of the officials who rejected their representations.
The Supreme Court rejected all the procedural challenges raised. It held that showing the detenus the CCTV footage via a laptop (rather than providing a CD player) was adequate in the circumstances, since the footage was displayed before the representations were made and the detenus never renewed a request for further viewing. The Court found that the officials who communicated rejection of the representations had merely performed a "ministerial act" of conveying decisions made by the competent Detaining Authority and Central Government, which did not vitiate the process. It also held that the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction was adequately supported by the grounds of detention, which established a live and proximate link between the detenus and the smuggling activity, and that all relied-upon documents (including translations) had been duly furnished. Both Special Leave Petitions were accordingly dismissed.
In preventive detention cases, courts scrutinize whether relied-upon evidence and translated documents were furnished to the detenu and whether representations were considered by the competent authority, but a ministerial communication of a decision by one official does not invalidate detention if the actual decision was made by the proper authority.
