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 Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) conducted a selection process in 2011-2013 for 362 Group 'A' and 'D' posts. Complaints surfaced of bribery and manipulation in the examinations and interviews, including an FIR against the KPSC's Chairman and officials. Based on a CID report, the State Government annulled the written test and interview results, but a Tribunal later quashed that annulment and ordered appointments; the Karnataka High Court then reversed the Tribunal and restored the cancellation of the entire selection, prompting the selected candidates to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting strong evidence of a rigged process: call records between candidates and KPSC members, 566 candidates receiving identical pre-determined marks with no individual objective assessment, and even the building's digital video recorder being replaced to destroy evidence. The Court held that when a selection process itself is tainted, it is not always necessary to separate tainted from untainted candidates, and a pre-appointment cancellation can be interfered with only if patently arbitrary, mala fide, or illegal, which was not the case here. However, since no one had argued before the High Court that the written examination alone (as opposed to the interviews) was untainted, the Court gave the parties liberty to raise that specific point before the High Court within two weeks, leaving it open for the High Court to decide whether the written test results could be restored or a fresh selection held.
Courts will not restore even a completed selection process to government service if there is credible evidence the process itself, not just individual candidates, was manipulated; maintaining the integrity of public recruitment outweighs any expectation interest candidates may have from merely appearing on a select list.
