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 Havildar in the Army's Corps of Military Police was investigated and tried by Summary Court Martial for extortion-type misconduct (demanding cash, fuel, and goods from subordinate units) and pleaded guilty, receiving a reduction in rank. A Deputy Judge-Advocate General, acting without proper statutory authority as a "reviewing authority," then purported to set aside the Court Martial on a technical ground. The Army subsequently issued a fresh Show Cause Notice and discharged the respondent from service for the very same conduct, which the respondent challenged as double jeopardy; the High Court agreed and quashed the discharge.
The Supreme Court held that India's constitutional double jeopardy protection (Article 20(2)) only bars a second prosecution following a conviction-and-punishment ("autrefois convict"), not following an acquittal ("autrefois acquit"): a deliberate choice by the Constitution's framers, traced through the Constituent Assembly debates. The Court further found that the Deputy Judge-Advocate General had no statutory power to set aside the Court Martial findings (only a narrow forwarding role under the Army Rules), so the "setting aside" was itself invalid, and the respondent's guilty plea and conviction by the Summary Court Martial had never been properly undone. Because departmental/disciplinary proceedings are not barred by Article 20(2) even where a criminal matter has been dealt with, and because the underlying Court Martial conviction was never validly erased, the Court restored the original Court Martial finding and allowed the Army to proceed in accordance with law.
A departmental or disciplinary action against a government/military employee is generally not barred by "double jeopardy" merely because the same facts were the subject of an earlier criminal or court-martial proceeding: India's constitutional protection against double jeopardy applies only where there was an actual conviction and punishment, not an acquittal.
