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 Rajasthan government notified the creation of new Revenue Villages, including two named "Amargarh" and "Sagatsar," carved out of a village in Barmer district. A 2009 state circular required that new revenue village names not be based on any individual's name, religion, caste, or sub-caste. Villagers challenged the notification, pointing out that "Amargarh" and "Sagatsar" were in fact derived from the names of two individuals (Amarram and Sagat Singh) who had donated land for the new villages. A Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court agreed and quashed the notification for these two villages, but a Division Bench, on appeal by other affected respondents, reversed this and restored the notification, reasoning that the precedents relied upon by the Single Judge did not apply since the naming process was already complete. The original petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the 2009 circular, though an executive policy rather than a statute, was binding on the government since it embodied an important object, maintaining communal harmony by preventing villages from being named after individuals, castes, or religions. It was undisputed that "Amargarh" and "Sagatsar" were indeed named after specific individuals, in direct violation of Clause 4 of the circular. The government cannot act contrary to its own binding policy without lawfully amending or withdrawing it, and the Division Bench had erred by focusing only on precedent applicability rather than this core violation. The Court quashed the Division Bench's judgment and restored the Single Judge's order invalidating the notification for these two villages.
A government policy or circular, even though not a statute, legally binds the government's own actions: an official notification that violates the government's own stated policy (here, a rule against naming villages after individuals) can be struck down as arbitrary and unconstitutional unless the policy itself is first validly changed.
