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 moreFive well-known public figures (historian Romila Thapar among them) filed a writ petition after the Maharashtra Police arrested five human-rights activists, journalists and lawyers from different cities in connection with an FIR about the "Elgar Parishad" event linked to violence at Bhima Koregaon. The petitioners did not seek to halt the investigation itself, but asked the Supreme Court to transfer it to an independent agency or have it monitored by the Court, alleging the arrests were a politically motivated attempt to silence dissent. The Court had earlier passed an interim order on 29 August 2018 restraining the arrested activists from being taken into custody while it heard the matter.
The majority (CJI Misra, writing for himself and Justice Khanwilkar) held that the petitioners, who were "next friends" of the accused rather than the accused themselves or direct victims, could not seek relief (such as changing the investigating agency) that the accused could not themselves claim in this manner, and that the material before the police showed a genuine basis for the FIR and arrests rather than mere political vendetta. The majority therefore declined to appoint a Special Investigation Team or order court-monitored investigation, disposed of the writ petition, but extended the earlier protection against arrest for four weeks so the five accused could approach the appropriate courts (e.g., for bail or quashing) on their own. Justice Chandrachud dissented, holding that the specific facts raised a real doubt about the fairness of the state police's investigation and that a Special Investigating Team, monitored by the Court, was warranted.
The Supreme Court will not readily substitute an ongoing police investigation with a court-appointed team merely on allegations of bias, especially when raised by third parties on an accused person's behalf rather than by the accused directly, but as this case shows, such calls can still produce a serious, reasoned dissent within the Court itself, and the accused retain the right to seek relief like bail or quashing in the ordinary courts.
