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 petitioners had obtained Engineering degrees through Distance Education during 2001-2005 from deemed universities that lacked proper AICTE approval at the time. A 2017 Supreme Court judgment (and a clarificatory 2018 order) in a related matter had allowed such students to retain their degrees and associated benefits if they passed a qualifying test conducted by AICTE; the petitioners passed this test in their first attempt in 2018 and were working as Junior Engineers in Haryana's Public Health Engineering Department. They filed this contempt petition alleging the State had wilfully disobeyed the earlier judgment by ignoring their representations for promotion and higher-qualification benefits while processing promotions for their juniors.
The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions, finding no wilful violation of its earlier judgment or order. It clarified that the intent of the original directions was only to restore the "status quo ante", i.e., to prevent withdrawal of benefits the candidates were already enjoying as of the date of the original judgment, not to confer new, additional benefits (such as promotion credit for a higher qualification) that the candidates had not yet obtained at that time. Since the petitioners had not been granted any such promotion-related benefit before the earlier judgment, the Department's refusal to grant it now was not contempt; any such entitlement would have to be pursued through a fresh, properly instituted legal challenge, not a contempt petition. Each petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,000.
A contempt petition can only be used to enforce what a court's earlier order actually directed: it cannot be used as a shortcut to claim new benefits the order never granted; a fresh grievance needs its own, separate legal proceeding.
