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 petitioner, appearing in person, sought suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against a named individual (a Member of Parliament) for allegedly making scandalising remarks against the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India in connection with the Court's hearing of challenges to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, including statements blaming the Supreme Court for "civil wars" and for inciting "religious wars" in the country. The petitioner also sought a police FIR against the individual and a government advisory against hate speech by political leaders generally.
The Court found the remarks "highly irresponsible" and capable of scandalising the judiciary, but explained that the power of criminal contempt is discretionary and courts need not react defensively to every objectionable statement, since public confidence in courts is not so fragile as to be shaken by such remarks. It reaffirmed that judicial decisions can be freely and even harshly criticised as part of free speech, and that courts derive legitimacy from reasoned, transparent, and accountable functioning rather than from suppressing criticism. It declined to initiate contempt proceedings or direct an FIR, but firmly stated that genuine hate speech, as distinct from criticism of judicial decisions, must be dealt with strictly under the law, and dismissed the petition with these observations.
Courts distinguish between legitimate, even sharp, criticism of judicial decisions (protected free speech) and hate speech or scandalising statements; the Supreme Court chooses restraint over the contempt power in most such cases, relying instead on public trust in its institutional legitimacy, while making clear that hate speech more broadly will not be tolerated.
