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, a sitting High Court Judge (identity anonymised as "XXX" in the judgment), was implicated after burnt currency notes were discovered in a store-room of his official residence following a fire. The Chief Justice of India set the "In-House Procedure" (an internal, non-statutory mechanism adopted by the Full Court in 1999) into motion, constituting a three-member committee that found the misconduct serious enough to warrant removal proceedings. The judge was asked to resign or seek voluntary retirement, but declined; the CJI then forwarded the committee's report and the judge's response to the President and Prime Minister for possible removal proceedings, and photographs/video of the discovery were placed in the public domain. The judge filed a writ petition arguing that only Parliament, acting under Articles 124/217/218 read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, could examine a judge's conduct for removal, and that the In-House Procedure's provisions allowing the Committee/CJI to opine on "removal-worthy" misconduct were unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court traced the constitutional scheme for removing judges (only by Parliamentary impeachment for "proved misbehaviour or incapacity") and the parallel, judge-made "In-House Procedure" that has existed since the 1990s as a self-regulatory mechanism to protect institutional integrity short of formal impeachment. It held that the In-House Procedure does not itself remove a judge. It is a fact-finding, confidential process whose report can only inform the CJI's own advice/intimation to the President and Prime Minister, and does not usurp Parliament's exclusive constitutional power to remove a judge; hence it is not a parallel or extra-constitutional removal mechanism and does not violate Articles 14, 21, or 124. The Court found nothing improper in the CJI's actions except the uploading of photographs/video footage of the incident onto the Supreme Court's website, which it held was not a required or approved part of the Procedure and should not have happened, though the petitioner had not objected to it at the time and no relief was claimed on that point. The writ petition was dismissed in its entirety.
The judiciary's internal "In-House Procedure" for probing judicial misconduct is a valid, constitutionally-compatible self-regulation tool distinct from the Parliamentary impeachment process. It can trigger a recommendation for removal proceedings without itself violating a judge's fundamental rights, though sensitive material from such confidential inquiries should not be made public.
