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 husband of the respondent was detained under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act (a preventive-detention law used against smuggling/foreign-exchange offenders) in February 2013. His representation against the detention was rejected by the competent authority, but the order of rejection was communicated to him only through a subordinate official (the Under Secretary), not directly by the authority itself. The Kerala High Court quashed the detention order and set the detenu free, holding that non-communication of the rejection order by the competent authority itself violated his constitutional right under Article 22(5) to have his representation properly considered. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court against this release.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's approach, treating non-communication of the order by the competent authority itself (as opposed to a subordinate official conveying it) as automatically fatal, was legally incorrect. What Article 22(5) truly guarantees is a genuine, fair, and prompt subjective consideration of the representation, not necessarily a speaking order personally transmitted by the top authority; courts can always call for and examine the file to verify real consideration occurred. On examining the file, the Court found genuine subjective satisfaction had been exercised, so the detention order was validly sustained. It accordingly set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal. On the separate practical question of whether the detenu (already released for over two years) should now be sent back into custody, the Court did not decide this itself but directed the detaining authority to re-examine, within two months, whether continued detention was still warranted given the lapse of time.
In preventive detention cases, what the Constitution requires is genuine, fair consideration of a detenu's representation (verifiable from the official file), not necessarily a formal order communicated personally by the highest authority; courts look at substance over form, though the ultimate question of resuming a long-lapsed detention is left to fresh executive assessment rather than automatic reinstatement.
