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 moreFor Selection Year 2014, the Bihar Department of Agriculture had to recommend officers from its cadre for appointment to the IAS. Its Selection Committee recommended the appellant and another officer over Respondent No. 1, whose name had previously been returned by the General Administration Department (GAD) for not meeting the expected norms of recommendation. Respondent No. 1 challenged his non-recommendation before the Patna High Court, which found the process arbitrary and directed the State Screening Committee to recommend his name to the UPSC, thereby quashing the appellant's appointment to the IAS. The appellant and the state appealed this to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in concluding the Department's non-recommendation of Respondent No. 1 in 2014 was suspect or arbitrary, since the record showed his earlier recommendation had genuinely been returned by the GAD for not meeting required norms: there was no evidence of mala fide or bias in recommending the appellant and another officer instead. Separately, and more fundamentally, the Court held that even if some arbitrariness had been found in the process, the High Court's specific direction ordering the Screening Committee to recommend Respondent No. 1's name was wholly without jurisdiction: a court can at most direct a fresh re-assessment of all candidates' names, not substitute its own choice of candidate for the Selection Committee's judgment. Finding no basis to disturb the appointments already made for 2014, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeals.
Even where a court finds fault with a selection process, it cannot direct the appointment of a specific candidate in place of the expert body's choice: its remedy is limited to ordering the selection process to be redone properly, not to picking the winner itself.
