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 moreThree connected writ petitions, filed by the political party Swaraj Abhiyan, by the Leader of Opposition in the Chhattisgarh Assembly, and by a social activist, alleged that the Chhattisgarh government's 2007 purchase of an Agusta A-109 Power helicopter involved a sham tender and caused a loss to the public exchequer, and that the Chief Minister's son had benefited through an offshore company linked to the deal (based partly on Panama Papers-type disclosures). They sought a court-directed investigation into the procurement and the alleged offshore bank accounts. The Union of India and the State of Chhattisgarh contested the petitions, with the Attorney General initially objecting that the litigation was politically motivated.
The Supreme Court examined the full procurement record, including the CAG report, correspondence with the helicopter manufacturer Agusta Westland and its dealer, and the pricing history, and found that the price paid was consistent with the genuine market quotes for faster delivery and that there was no clear evidence the extra cost was really a disguised commission benefiting the Chief Minister's son, who in any event was not personally a party to the case. The Court held that a PIL under Article 32 cannot be used by a political rival to probe ordinary procedural irregularities in an executive decision without a genuine, substantiated public-interest element, and that courts should be cautious about second-guessing bona fide executive purchase decisions absent clear proof of extraneous consideration. Finding no evidence to substantiate the corruption allegations, the Court dismissed all three writ petitions with no order as to costs.
Courts will not order an investigation into a government's commercial/procurement decisions merely on suspicion or political allegation: a petitioner seeking judicial intervention into executive decision-making must produce concrete evidence of wrongdoing, not just procedural quibbles or circumstantial links.
