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 appellant was an Inspector/Station House Officer in Delhi during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots following Indira Gandhi's assassination. Years later, he was charge-sheeted for alleged dereliction of duty in controlling the riots. An Inquiry Officer exonerated him in 1999, but the Disciplinary Authority disagreed and, after prolonged litigation including a round before the Central Administrative Tribunal, imposed a penalty of reduction in rank in 2001. The Delhi High Court in 2022 set aside that punishment for violating natural justice but gave the Disciplinary Authority liberty to issue a fresh disagreement note and restart the process; the appellant challenged only that liberty to proceed afresh.
The Supreme Court examined the Inquiry Officer's detailed findings and the Disciplinary Authority's "cryptic" disagreement note, concluding that the note ignored key facts such as the limited police force available, the priority given to protecting vulnerable installations, and testimony from the appellant's own superior officer praising his conduct during the riots. Given that over 40 years had passed since the incident, the appellant had long since retired and was now around 80 years old, the Court held it would be unjust to subject him to a fresh round of disciplinary proceedings. It set aside the High Court's direction permitting a fresh disagreement note, upheld the quashing of the punishment, and allowed the appellant all consequential benefits including pension revision.
Even where a disciplinary or inquiry process is procedurally flawed, courts can decline to order a fresh round of proceedings where extreme delay, advancing age, or other circumstances make a remand unfair or unnecessary: justice delayed can itself become a ground for finality.
