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 moreThis judgment covers a batch of appeals filed by the State of Punjab against persons convicted by various trial courts for possessing large quantities of "manufactured drugs" (containing substances like Diphenoxylate) in violation of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). While their criminal appeals were pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the convicted persons applied for, and were granted, suspension of their sentences and bail. The State challenged these bail/suspension orders before the Supreme Court, including on the ground that the High Court had wrongly suggested the accused should instead have been tried under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The Supreme Court held that the NDPS Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act operate alongside each other, not in substitution: manufactured drugs can still attract NDPS Act offences, and it is the State's prerogative to choose to prosecute under the NDPS Act. It found the High Court's reasoning, that the accused should instead be tried under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, legally unsound, and held that the High Court had also erred by making observations on the merits of the case while only deciding a bail/suspension application. Given the gravity of the NDPS offences involved, the Court held the High Court's grant of suspension of sentence and bail was unsustainable, set aside those orders, and directed that the accused-respondents be taken back into custody immediately. It separately requested the High Court to expedite the underlying appeals, particularly for respondents who had already served a long period in custody.
Courts deciding bail or suspension-of-sentence applications should not make findings on the merits of a still-pending appeal, and bail in serious narcotics cases can be set aside on appeal if granted on a legally flawed basis: the NDPS Act's provisions apply in addition to, not instead of, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
