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 moreA young married woman died in February 2021, leading to cross-allegations: the husband's family accused the wife's parents of harassment and torture, while a counter-allegation was that the deceased and her parents had misappropriated cash and jewellery from the husband's family. During investigation, it emerged that the second respondent had allegedly acted as an agent for the deceased's father and threatened a witness in connection with an extortion demand. The investigating officer sought a court order to collect the second respondent's voice sample for comparison, which a Magistrate allowed, but the High Court set aside that order, even though the Supreme Court had already settled this exact legal question in a binding precedent, and a purported reference of that precedent to a larger Bench had in fact been closed for default.
The Supreme Court criticised the High Court for entertaining an "academic" objection that was already foreclosed by binding precedent, and for wrongly treating a defunct reference to a larger Bench as still open. On the substantive point, the Court reasoned that compelling a person to give a voice sample (like a fingerprint, signature, or handwriting sample) does not by itself incriminate that person (incrimination, if any, only arises later when the sample is compared against other evidence gathered during investigation) so taking such a sample does not violate the constitutional protection against testimonial self-incrimination. It set aside the High Court's order and restored the Magistrate's order permitting collection of the voice sample.
Being made to provide a voice sample (like a fingerprint or handwriting sample) for police investigation is not the same as being forced to testify against oneself, and does not violate the constitutional right against self-incrimination. It becomes relevant only if and when it is later matched against other evidence.
