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 moreIn its earlier judgment dated 20.03.2018 (Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2018), the Supreme Court had issued guidelines restricting arrests under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, including requiring prior approval of the appointing authority or the SSP before arresting a public or non-public servant, and a preliminary inquiry by a Deputy Superintendent of Police before registering an FIR. The Union of India filed review petitions arguing these directions diluted the protective purpose of the Act and were not warranted, since Parliament itself had already weighed the competing considerations when enacting the law. The Attorney General, appearing on notice, argued the Court's directions under Article 142 could not override or dilute an express statutory scheme in the absence of any legislative vacuum.
The Supreme Court held that the earlier guidelines amounted to judicial legislation that improperly fettered the Act's protective scheme, relying on precedent (including Lalita Kumari and Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India) that no preliminary inquiry is required once a cognizable offence is disclosed, and that Article 142 cannot be used to override or supplant an express statute where no legal vacuum exists. It found requiring approval from an appointing authority or SSP before arrest, and a mandatory preliminary inquiry by a DSP, imposed an unwarranted extra hurdle on SC/ST victims not applicable to victims of ordinary IPC offences, undermining the Act's protective discrimination rationale under Article 15(4). The Court accordingly recalled directions (iii) and (iv) of the 2018 judgment (on prior approval for arrest and the mandatory preliminary inquiry) and held that direction (v), which made violation of those directions actionable as contempt/disciplinary action, automatically fell away as a result. The review petitions were allowed to that extent.
The Supreme Court's own earlier guidelines are not beyond review, where a later bench finds that judicially-created safeguards effectively dilute a protective statute passed by Parliament for a vulnerable class, those guidelines can be recalled; the case also illustrates the limits of Article 142 "complete justice" powers, which cannot be used to add conditions that conflict with an express legislative scheme.
