Daily Supreme Court reporting that explains what the Court held, why it matters, and where each judgment sits in Indian law.
A Division Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria reduced a five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence to the period already undergone, applying proportionality in sentencing.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra held that the substituted Section 59(d) made the Commissioner the disciplinary authority, validating an Executive Engineer's dismissal.
A division bench corrected two calculation errors by the Madras High Court and held that a mason who lost his leg above the knee suffers 100% functional disability, not 70%.
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria reverses concurrent findings against a 1957 sale deed, holding the amended void-transfer regime cannot operate retrospectively on accrued rights.
A Division Bench upheld concurrent negligence findings against a truck driver and corrected the omission of filial consortium compensation for parents of a deceased CA student.
A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi held that a vehicle financier has no enforceable claim against an insurer absent a direct contractual relationship.
A Division Bench dismissed the buyer's appeal, holding that funds shown years after suit and a delayed filing defeat the readiness and willingness required under Section 16(c).
A Supreme Court bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and Atul S. Chandurkar sets aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that substituted a removal decree with monetary compensation never prayed for.
A Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reversed reinstatement and back-wages directions, holding an employee cannot benefit from his own failure to inform his employer of an address change.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar held the right to walk integral to Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, with footpaths a correlative enforceable duty.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and V. Mohana restores a 2005 flat-delay complaint, ruling that an arbitration clause cannot displace consumer forum jurisdiction once a complaint is admitted.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court upheld a direction to redo the TNPSC Motor Vehicle Inspector selection, ruling no vested right arises from placement in an intermediate select list.
A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar restores candidates excluded over workshop approval gaps, directing TNPSC to complete selection from a wider eligible pool.
A division bench held the Madhya Pradesh SPE is not an intelligence and security organisation, voiding the 2011 RTI exemption notification and upholding disclosure of sanction records.
A Supreme Court division bench held that Rule 23(1) of Haryana's 2019 Rules suspends only financial assistance during criminal proceedings, not compassionate appointment, and set aside the High Court order.
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma holds that forum non conveniens rarely applies where writ jurisdiction is grounded in the situs of the respondent's office under Article 226(1).
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S. Chandurkar held that Article 329(b) bars writ relief against nomination rejection, leaving an election petition as the only remedy.
A division bench held that a plaintiff who challenged only specific sale deeds was not barred from later asserting his larger, undisputed title from the 1960 deed.
A division bench held that the absence of mandatory officials under Rule 3 was a curable, severable defect, directing the cooperative society to reconvene and reconsider the appointments.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside a non-speaking MHA letter, held heinousness alone cannot bar remission, and ordered Rohit Chaturvedi's premature release.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the dismissal of an MSEDCL clerk as disproportionate while leaving the misconduct finding intact and ordering subsistence allowance.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi holds that the Registrar General cannot suo-motu initiate disciplinary proceedings against a judicial officer without the Chief Justice's authority.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi holds that ignoring a court notice in mutation proceedings bars a later probate revocation application as time-barred.
