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 moreAn NGO, Shakti Vahini, filed a writ petition directly in the Supreme Court asking the Court to direct the Central and State Governments to take preventive steps against "honour killings": violence inflicted on young couples, often by self-appointed clan or community bodies known as khap panchayats, for marrying against the wishes of family or community (including inter-caste and inter-religious marriages). The petitioner sought a national and state-level plan of action, special police cells couples could approach for protection, and mandatory prosecution in honour-crime cases. The Court examined extensive material on how khap panchayats operate and the violence and social boycott they inflict on consenting adult couples.
The Supreme Court held that the right of two consenting adults to choose their own life partner is an inseparable part of liberty and dignity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that neither family, community, nor any informal body like a khap panchayat has any authority to veto or punish that choice. It held that such assemblies acting against a couple's marriage have no legal sanction whatsoever and that their actions, including threats, violence, and social boycott, are wholly illegal and must be stopped entirely, since only the formal justice system, not self-appointed community bodies, can determine criminality or impose consequences. The Court laid down detailed preventive, remedial, and punitive directions for across India: police must register FIRs immediately on learning of threatening khap gatherings, District Magistrates/SPs must set up safe houses and a 24-hour helpline for threatened couples, Special Cells must be created in every district, fast-track courts must try honour-crime cases within six months, and officials who fail to act face departmental/disciplinary action. States were directed to comply within six weeks and report compliance to the Court, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly with these directions binding under Article 32 until Parliament legislates on the subject.
No family, caste group, or community panchayat has any legal power to stop, punish, or take "action" against the marriage of two consenting adults, doing so is itself a crime, and any couple facing such threats is entitled to police protection, a safe house, and a dedicated helpline under directions that remain binding law today.
