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 appellants were appointees to the Jharkhand Judicial Service who, after a mandatory one-year training period, were confirmed in service. The State/High Court authorities sought to withhold certain mandatory increments and benefits on the ground that the appellants had not cleared a Hindi-language examination under old 1963 Bihar Rules, even though the governing 2004 Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules had expressly repealed and superseded the earlier 2001 Rules and did not themselves require passing any such Hindi examination as a condition for confirmation.
The Supreme Court held that the 2004 Rules, which specifically superseded all earlier rules, could not be read as silently importing the Hindi-examination requirement from the older 1963 Bihar Rules; since the 2004 Rules made passing the prescribed judicial examination the sole condition for confirmation, the authorities' insistence on the additional Hindi test was legally unsustainable. The Court clarified that the government remained free to formally amend the Rules in future if it wanted to add such a requirement, but could not do so retroactively through interpretation. It held the appellants entitled to their differential mandatory benefits/increments and confirmed they would be covered under the old pension scheme corresponding to their actual 2011 date of entry into service, and allowed the appeal. A few days later, on the parties' joint mentioning, the Court issued a short clarificatory order deleting two paragraphs of directions that the parties agreed were unnecessary and slightly rephrasing the compliance timeline for remitting the benefits.
When a new set of service rules expressly repeals and supersedes an older rule book, authorities cannot keep enforcing conditions from the repealed rules unless the new rules themselves carry that requirement forward: service conditions must be judged strictly by the rules actually in force at the relevant time.
