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 moreA turtle was seized from the respondent by forest officials in Kerala in July 2016, and an offence was registered under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. A veterinary surgeon identified the turtle as an "Indian Flap Shell" turtle, and the turtle was released back into the wild the very next day. The accused got the criminal proceedings quashed by the Kerala High Court on the ground that this particular species was not listed in the protected Schedule of the Act, and the Deputy Range Forest Officer appealed to the Supreme Court. This matter came before the Court as a review petition against an earlier Supreme Court order of 16.05.2018.
The Court first found sufficient grounds to review and recall its own earlier order dated 16.05.2018, allowing the review petition. Deciding the underlying appeal afresh, the Court examined the Schedule to the Wild Life (Protection) Act and found that only the "Indian Soft-shelled Turtle" (Lissemys punctata punctata) is listed as protected, whereas the veterinary report had identified the seized animal only as "Indian Flap Shell" (Lissemys punctata), a different sub-species not covered by the Schedule. Since the turtle was never available for re-examination (having been released within a day), and on the face of the record it was not a protected species, the Court held the High Court was right to quash the criminal case, and dismissed the appeal.
Precise scientific/species identification matters in wildlife protection prosecutions: if the specific sub-species seized is not actually named in the Act's protected Schedule, criminal proceedings cannot be sustained, even if a closely related sub-species is protected.
