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 moreIn a murder trial where the accused (including "highly influential political leaders," per the trial court) were alleged to have tortured and killed a man after he disclosed information about activities at a rented flat, the defence sought to defer cross-examining the first prosecution witness until after other related witnesses had given their evidence-in-chief, arguing this would otherwise reveal their defence strategy. The Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge) refused this, citing the risk of witnesses losing memory and of being threatened given the accused's influence. The Kerala High Court, in a short and unreasoned order, reversed the Trial Court and allowed the deferral.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed review of Section 231(2) CrPC (and the analogous Section 242(3)), holding that while a judge has discretion to defer cross-examination, this is not a right of the accused and must be justified by specific reasons: a general assertion that the defence strategy might be revealed is not enough. The Court laid down a list of factors (risk of witness influence or threats, risk of tailored testimony, memory loss, and trial delay) that should guide this discretion, and set out detailed practice guidelines for trial courts on scheduling witness examination. Because the Trial Court's refusal was well-reasoned and the High Court gave no reasons for reversing it, especially given the credible risk of witness intimidation by influential accused persons, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Trial Court's original decision refusing deferral, while clarifying this had no bearing on the merits of the trial itself.
Deferring cross-examination of a witness in a criminal trial is a judge's discretionary power, not an automatic entitlement for the accused: courts must weigh concrete risks like witness intimidation and memory loss, and any order reversing a well-reasoned trial-court decision must itself be properly reasoned.
