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 moreSK. Md. Anisur Rahaman ("Anisur") was facing trial along with co-accused for the 2019 murder of a political rival in Panskura, West Bengal, allegedly out of a political conspiracy. He was granted bail by the Supreme Court in January 2025, subject to a condition confining him to the city of Kolkata. Anisur sought modification of this residence condition, while Afjal Ali Sha, the victim's relative, sought cancellation of Anisur's bail altogether, alleging he was influencing the trial. Both applications, along with a delay-condonation application, were taken up together, alongside concerns about a Sessions Court order that had made adverse remarks against the Special Public Prosecutor and referred the matter to the state's Legal Remembrancer.
The Supreme Court rejected Afjal's application to cancel Anisur's bail, finding it was more of a retaliatory response to Anisur's modification request than one grounded in genuine cause. It also rejected Anisur's application to modify the Kolkata-confinement bail condition, holding that a previous similar request had already been rejected and that allowing it now, absent a materially different justification, would amount to impermissibly reopening a settled bail condition. Separately, the Court found that the Sessions Court had unfairly criticised the Special Public Prosecutor as "torpid and indifferent" for seeking re-examination of witnesses to ensure a fair trial, and set aside that part of the Sessions Court's order referring the matter to the Legal Remembrancer, while directing the Sessions Court to let the prosecutor continue the trial fairly and conclude proceedings without being unduly rushed by earlier timelines.
Bail conditions, once fixed and unsuccessfully challenged before, will not ordinarily be reopened without a genuinely new justification, and applications for cancellation of bail must be grounded in real misuse of liberty rather than used as a tactical counter to the accused's own requests; trial courts should also be cautious about publicly criticising prosecutors for legitimate steps taken to ensure a fair trial.
