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 morePolice investigating a job-fraud scheme wanted to match a recorded phone conversation to the appellant, Ritesh Sinha, and sought a Magistrate's order compelling him to give a voice sample for comparison. Sinha challenged this before the Allahabad High Court, arguing no law permitted a Magistrate to force an accused to give a voice sample, and that doing so would violate his constitutional protection against self-incrimination. When his appeal first reached the Supreme Court, a two-judge bench delivered a split verdict, both judges agreed there was no violation of the right against self-incrimination, but disagreed on whether a Magistrate could order this in the absence of a specific law, requiring the matter to be referred to a larger bench.
The larger bench held that compelling a person to give a voice sample does not violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution, since a voice sample (like a handwriting or fingerprint sample) is only material for comparison and not self-incriminating testimony in itself. On the key question of a Magistrate's power, the Court noted that Parliament had updated the Code of Criminal Procedure to let Magistrates order handwriting and signature samples but never amended it to expressly cover voice samples, creating a gap. Rather than waiting indefinitely for legislation, the Court held that until Parliament acts, a Judicial Magistrate has the power to order a person to give a voice sample for a criminal investigation, exercising the Supreme Court's own constitutional power under Article 142 to do complete justice and fill this legislative gap. The appeals were disposed of on this basis.
Courts can sometimes temporarily fill a genuine gap in criminal procedure law to keep investigations workable, but giving a biometric or physical sample (like a voice, fingerprint, or handwriting sample) for comparison purposes is generally not treated as "self-incrimination" under the Constitution.
