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 moreThese connected petitions challenged directions the Supreme Court itself had earlier issued in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. (2017), which required every Section 498-A IPC complaint (the anti-cruelty/dowry-harassment provision) to first be screened by a "Family Welfare Committee" before police could act or arrest. The petitioners argued these directions effectively diluted statutory protection for genuine victims of matrimonial cruelty and intruded into the legislature's domain.
The Court held that creating Family Welfare Committees, staffed by non-judicial members with power to vet complaints before police action, went beyond the judiciary's role and impermissibly altered the statutory scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code; a court cannot rewrite legislation through directions. It accordingly struck down the directions on Family Welfare Committees and related automatic-bail provisions from Rajesh Sharma, while retaining the direction that settlements between parties could still be given effect through quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC (per the Gian Singh principles). It directed that protection against misuse of Section 498-A should instead come from existing safeguards, proper police training on arrest principles already laid down in Joginder Kumar, D.K. Basu, Lalita Kumari and Arnesh Kumar, rather than a judicially invented screening body.
Courts cannot create new extra-statutory institutions (like a screening committee) that have the practical effect of delaying or diluting a citizen's statutory right to prompt police action on a criminal complaint; protections against misuse of a law must be found within the existing legal framework (bail, quashing powers, proper training), not through judicial additions to the statute.
