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 moreThis is a batch of applications filed within the decades-old All India Judges Association writ petition (originally filed in 1989), which has periodically set and revised nationwide rules for recruitment and promotion within India's subordinate judiciary. Various High Courts, State Governments, and judicial officers' associations asked the Supreme Court to revisit rules laid down in earlier rounds of this litigation, particularly a 2002 judgment that set the quota for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service (District Judge cadre) through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) at 25%, later reduced to 10% by a 2010 order. The Court framed eight specific issues covering the LDCE quota, minimum qualifying service, incentives for junior civil judges, how quotas should be calculated, suitability testing for merit-cum-seniority promotions, and the minimum years of legal practice required to sit the entry-level Civil Judge (Junior Division) examination.
After hearing an amicus curiae and representatives of States and High Courts nationwide, the Court restored the LDCE quota for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service to 25% (from the 10% set in 2010), reasoning this better incentivizes merit among serving judicial officers as originally intended by the 2002 ruling. It reduced the minimum qualifying service to sit the LDCE to 3 years as a Civil Judge (Senior Division), with a combined minimum of 7 years' total judicial service. It created a new 10% LDCE-based accelerated promotion channel from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division), directed that any unfilled LDCE vacancies revert to regular merit-cum-seniority promotion, mandated that LDCE quotas be calculated on cadre strength rather than annual vacancies, and directed High Courts to frame or strengthen objective suitability-test rules (considering factors like legal knowledge, quality of judgments, ACRs, disposal rates, and communication skills) for merit-cum-seniority promotions. It also restored the requirement of a minimum 3 years' practice as an advocate to be eligible for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) entrance exam, reversing an earlier relaxation, while directing that this practice period run from the date of provisional Bar Council enrolment (not from passing the All India Bar Examination), that law-clerk experience count toward it, and that newly selected Civil Judges undergo at least one year of training before presiding over a court. All High Courts and State Governments were directed to amend their service rules within three and six months respectively, and the new practice requirement applies only to future recruitment cycles, not ones already underway.
Entry and promotion standards for India's judiciary are deliberately calibrated by the Supreme Court to balance merit, experience, and practical courtroom readiness: a fresh law graduate cannot become a judge straight out of college, and career judicial officers are given real, examination-based paths to rise based on demonstrated competence rather than seniority alone.
