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 moreThe appellant was an accused in a long-pending corruption case (FIR from 2006, under IPC provisions and the Prevention of Corruption Act), where the trial had only just begun after years of litigation over the legality of the FIR itself. A person describing himself as a "social activist and advocate," who had no personal connection to the case, filed an application asking the Allahabad High Court to direct the trial court to expedite and conclude the trial quickly. The High Court granted that request without issuing notice to the accused, prompting the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that while courts generally should ensure corruption trials proceed swiftly since such offences harm society at large, an outsider with no stake in or connection to the case cannot ordinarily be allowed to approach the court seeking such directions, relying on its own precedent (Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary) that only the parties to a criminal case, not unconnected third parties, have standing to raise issues about how that case proceeds. Because the applicant here had no demonstrated link to the case and had even stopped appearing to pursue his own application, the High Court's order was unsustainable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the third party's application, while clarifying that the trial court remains free to expedite the trial on its own under the law.
A person who is not a party to, or otherwise genuinely affected by, a criminal case generally cannot approach a court to seek orders about how that case is conducted: procedural fairness requires that strangers to litigation not be allowed to short-circuit the normal course of justice, even with seemingly good intentions.
