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 moreThe victim, Renukaswamy, had sent messages to a woman (Accused No. 1) who was allegedly in a relationship with a well-known actor (Accused No. 2, referred to in the judgment as "Sri Darshan"). The prosecution's case was that the two of them, along with associates, conspired to trace, abduct, and kill the victim; he was lured to a location, abducted, taken to a shed, and beaten by multiple accused persons over several hours with sticks, ropes, and an electric shock device, sustaining 39 injuries including 17 fractured ribs, before dying at the scene. His body was later dumped near a stormwater drain to mislead investigators. After bail was refused by the trial court, the Karnataka High Court granted bail to seven of the accused, prompting the State of Karnataka to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's bail order was a mechanical exercise of discretion that failed to give special, cogent reasons for granting bail in a case involving murder, criminal conspiracy, and an unlawful assembly, and that it had wrongly delved into weighing witness credibility and contradictions: a task reserved for trial, not a bail hearing. The Court specifically addressed Accused No. 2's celebrity status, holding that fame, wealth, and influence are not mitigating factors for bail but instead heighten the risk of witnesses being intimidated or evidence tampered with, especially given documented instances of him receiving special treatment in jail. Citing the constitutional guarantee of equality before law under Article 14, the Court held that no person is above the law regardless of social status, set aside the High Court's order, cancelled the bail of all respondents, and directed their immediate custody, while directing an expedited trial and clarifying that its observations should not influence the trial on merits.
Bail decisions in serious offences like murder must be backed by specific, reasoned justification rather than mechanical grants of liberty, and a person's fame, wealth, or social influence is treated by courts as a factor that can increase, not reduce, the risk of interference with justice, meaning celebrity status offers no special protection from the ordinary rules governing bail.
