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 moreA practising advocate who described himself as a public-spirited litigant filed a writ petition asking the Supreme Court to frame a binding rule requiring that three-judge benches headed by the Chief Justice always consist of the Chief Justice and the two most senior judges, that Constitution Benches be composed only of senior-most judges, and that the Court be split into specialized divisions (criminal, PIL, tax, service, land-dispute courts, etc.). He also sought a similar rule for the Allahabad High Court, casting aspersions on a specific High Court bench that had earlier held him in contempt and restrained his entry into that High Court's premises.
The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's personal grievance against the Allahabad High Court's contempt order could not be raised in this unrelated Article 32 petition, since the correctness of that order wasn't in question and the necessary parties weren't before the Court. On the substantive relief, the Court reaffirmed, citing State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and the Constitution Bench ruling in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India, that the Chief Justice is the exclusive "Master of the Roster" with sole prerogative to constitute Benches and allocate cases, and that no mandamus can compel a rule-making authority to frame rules in a particular way or dictate how Benches must be composed. The Court also rejected the premise that seniority alone determines a judge's competence to hear any category of case, noting every judge appointed under Article 124 is equally duty-bound to hear cases assigned by the Chief Justice. Despite calling some of the petitioner's averments "scandalous," the Court chose only to caution him rather than penalize him, and dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit.
The power to decide which judges sit on which bench and hear which cases belongs exclusively to the Chief Justice (of the Supreme Court or a High Court) as "Master of the Roster": no court can be directed by a litigant, or even by other judges, to compose benches by rank or seniority, and a writ petition cannot be used as a backdoor to re-litigate or cast aspersions on an unrelated, unchallenged judicial order.
