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 moreSukhwinder Singh @ Gora was arrested in January 2024 after police intercepted a car and recovered heroin packets weighing a total of about 1.465 kilograms, a "commercial quantity" under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, from him and a co-accused. After his first bail application was withdrawn, he filed a second bail petition, which the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed, citing his roughly two years in custody, the slow pace of trial, and holding that the strict bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be "diluted" in light of his right to a speedy trial. The State of Punjab appealed to the Supreme Court against this grant of bail.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was fundamentally flawed because it never recorded the mandatory "twin satisfaction" required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act (that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and that he is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail) before granting bail in a commercial-quantity case, and that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 must be read alongside Section 37's requirements, not used to override them. The Court also found the High Court had wrongly recorded that the respondent was "not involved in any other case," when the respondent had himself admitted in his own bail petition to having another FIR against him, and that the High Court failed to consider that this was actually his second bail application, with the first having been withdrawn shortly before, without any candid disclosure of what had happened with it. Because of these serious errors (the missing statutory satisfaction, the factual inconsistency, and the lack of candour in the bail petition) the Court set aside the bail order, directed the respondent to surrender within a week, while leaving him free to apply for bail afresh with a properly considered application.
In serious narcotics cases involving commercial quantities, courts cannot grant bail merely on grounds of custody delay or a slow trial: the special, stricter conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be expressly satisfied, and an accused seeking bail is expected to make full and honest disclosure of their case history, including any prior bail applications and other pending cases.
