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 appellant, referred to as "Victim X" to protect her identity, was a resident of a government-run women's protection home in Patna and the informant in an FIR alleging that the home's Superintendent (respondent No. 2) had drugged her and other female inmates with intoxicants and sent them out to be sexually exploited by influential men: allegations that came to light after a newspaper report prompted the High Court itself to order an investigation. The Special Court denied the Superintendent bail, but on her appeal, a Single Judge of the Patna High Court granted her bail in a brief, largely unreasoned order, without hearing the victim, who had not even been made a party to that appeal. The victim then approached the Supreme Court to have the bail cancelled.
The Supreme Court found this a fit case for exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to cancel bail. It held that the High Court's bail order was independently invalid because it violated Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, which makes it mandatory to hear the victim before deciding any bail application in an SC/ST Act case, something that could not happen here since the victim was never even impleaded. On the merits, the Court found the allegations, an official meant to protect vulnerable women instead facilitating their sexual exploitation, grave enough to "shake the conscience of the Court," and noted the accused had since been reinstated and posted in charge of another protection home, raising serious concerns about witness intimidation and undue influence. Citing its recent precedent in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held that an unreasoned bail order in such serious circumstances is open to cancellation. Bail was accordingly cancelled, with the accused directed to surrender within four weeks.
In cases under the SC/ST Act, the law makes it compulsory to hear the victim before bail is decided: a bail order passed without that hearing can be struck down on that ground alone. More broadly, bail granted through a brief, unreasoned order in a grave case, especially one raising a real risk of witnesses being intimidated, can be cancelled by a higher court even without any subsequent misconduct by the accused.
