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 batch of four appeals was filed by the Union of India challenging Gauhati High Court judgments that had set aside the removal/dismissal of several CRPF personnel and ordered their reinstatement. In each underlying case, the disciplinary inquiry had proceeded without a Presenting Officer being appointed, and the Inquiry Officer himself had conducted the examination of the prosecution witnesses. The High Court had found this arrangement violated natural justice because the Inquiry Officer effectively acted as both prosecutor and judge.
The Supreme Court held that the CRPF Rules, 1955 do not mandate appointment of a Presenting Officer, and non-appointment alone does not automatically vitiate an inquiry. However, drawing on precedent on natural justice and bias (including A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India and State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha), the Court held that if the Inquiry Officer himself steps into the shoes of a prosecutor, leading examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses and effectively prosecuting the case, the principle against bias is violated, since the Inquiry Officer is meant to be an independent, unbiased adjudicator. On the specific facts, where the High Court had found the Inquiry Officer did act as prosecutor, the Court agreed this vitiated the inquiries. All four appeals were accordingly dismissed, but subject to the liberty (as already granted by the High Court) for the authorities to hold a fresh inquiry from the stage of appointing a proper Presenting Officer, with arrear pay/allowances to be decided by the authorities.
In any disciplinary inquiry, the Inquiry Officer must remain a neutral adjudicator; if they personally conduct the prosecution's examination of witnesses rather than merely facilitating the hearing, the inquiry is tainted by bias and can be struck down, even though the law does not require a separate Presenting Officer in every case.
