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 moreThis was a large batch of writ petitions and appeals (over 50 connected matters) filed by individuals and companies who had been arrested or summoned by Customs and GST authorities, challenging the constitutional validity of the arrest powers given to these officers under the Customs Act, 1962 and the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners argued that Customs and GST officers are effectively acting like police officers when they arrest people, but without the procedural safeguards that apply to police arrests under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case traces back to an earlier three-judge bench decision (Om Prakash v. Union of India, 2011) which had held that such offences were non-cognizable, meaning officers generally needed a magistrate's warrant to arrest.
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the arrest powers under the Customs Act and the GST Act, rejecting the challenge, but laid down detailed safeguards on when and how those powers may actually be used. It held that before arresting anyone, the authorised officer must have "reasons to believe" (based on credible material, not routine suspicion) that the person committed a specified offence, and must record those reasons in writing. Arrest is not automatic even when the legal conditions are technically met; officers must additionally consider factors such as whether arrest is genuinely necessary for investigation, whether the person is likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and whether there is a real, evident intention to evade tax (mens rea) rather than a mere technical or interpretational dispute about tax liability. The Court also directed that arrested persons be given the grounds of arrest in writing and be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, aligning practice under these special tax statutes with ordinary constitutional protections against arbitrary arrest.
Customs and GST officers do have the power to arrest without a prior court warrant, but that power is not unconditional. It can only be used where there is credible material showing genuine wrongdoing and a real investigative need, not simply to pressure someone over a disputed tax assessment; anyone arrested is entitled to written reasons and prompt production before a magistrate.
