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 moreTwo connected appeals arose from a long-running dispute over Rajasthan's repeated attempts to upgrade the Napasar village Gram Panchayat into a Nagar Palika (municipality). A 2008 notification effecting this change was challenged, then withdrawn by the State itself, re-issued in 2016 pursuant to a High Court direction, and challenged yet again: this time the High Court upheld the fresh notification. Champa Lal (the original objector) and the parties aggrieved by the earlier quashing of the notification both carried the matter to the Supreme Court.
Instead of deciding the many grounds argued by the parties, the Supreme Court examined whether the State had ever issued the notification required under Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution, which obliges the Governor to fix uniform parameters, population, population density, revenue generated, percentage of non-agricultural employment, and similar factors, before classifying an area as transitional, a smaller urban area, or a larger urban area. The two notifications the State produced (issued under the 1959 and 2009 Municipality enactments) classified areas purely on population, ignoring the other mandatory factors, so the Court held neither one qualified as an Article 243Q(2) notification. In the absence of any valid notification, the entire chain of actions upgrading Napasar into a Nagarpalika, starting with the original 2008 notification, was declared unconstitutional, and the High Court's judgments examining it were held to be per incuriam for not having considered this constitutional requirement. The Court also rejected, as a bare, unsupported apprehension, the argument that industries might relocate if the municipality's status were undone. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.
A State government cannot upgrade or reorganise a local body like a village into a municipality by notification alone: it must first fix, through a proper notification under Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution, uniform criteria such as population and revenue; skipping this constitutional pre-condition can render the entire exercise void no matter how many rounds of litigation it has already survived.
