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 moreVihaan Kumar was arrested by Gurugram police in June 2024 in an economic offences case, and he alleged that he was never informed of the grounds for his arrest, violating his fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It also emerged that while hospitalized after his arrest, he had been handcuffed and chained to his hospital bed: a fact later admitted by the hospital's Medical Superintendent. The police's shifting justifications included claiming his wife was informed, that grounds were in the remand report, and that a case-diary entry recorded compliance: none of which were raised consistently or supported by contemporaneous written proof.
The Supreme Court held that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1), and the burden is on the police to prove compliance once an arrestee alleges it was not done: a burden the police failed to meet here, since none of their justifications (informing the wife, remand report references, a vague diary entry) actually amounted to properly communicating grounds of arrest to the appellant himself. Since the arrest itself was thus illegal, all consequent custody was also vitiated, and the Court ordered Vihaan Kumar's immediate release (though clarifying this would not affect the ongoing criminal trial). The Court separately condemned the shocking practice of handcuffing him to a hospital bed as a violation of his dignity under Article 21, and directed Haryana to issue guidelines preventing recurrence.
Every arrested person has an absolute right to be clearly and meaningfully told the specific grounds for their arrest, not just informed that an arrest is happening or shown paperwork later, and if the police cannot prove this was done, the arrest and any resulting custody are illegal and the person must be released, regardless of how the case against them later proceeds.
