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 respondent was detained under the COFEPOSA Act (a preventive detention law for economic offences) on 17.05.2019. After an earlier related detention order had been quashed by the Bombay High Court and then that quashing itself was set aside by the Supreme Court, the matter was referred to a statutory Advisory Board under Section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act. The Advisory Board opined there was no sufficient cause for continued detention. The Union of India, unhappy with this opinion, filed a petition directly in the Supreme Court challenging the Advisory Board's opinion itself, along with connected petitions involving another detenu.
The Supreme Court held that the opinion of a COFEPOSA Advisory Board is neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial decision but purely advisory: it is not a "tribunal" decision subject to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. Relying on earlier Constitution Bench and three-judge bench precedents, the Court held such advisory opinions, when favourable to the detenu, are binding only on the government (obliging release), and cannot themselves be challenged by the government in court. Accordingly, the Union's petition challenging the Advisory Board's opinion was dismissed as not maintainable, and the connected writ petitions concerning the other detenu were disposed of in line with the Board's similar opinion in that case, without needing separate orders.
When a statutory Advisory Board under a preventive detention law finds no sufficient cause for someone's continued detention, that opinion is final and binding on the government to secure release: the government cannot go to court to challenge or overturn a favourable advisory opinion.
