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 enrolled as a Washerman in the Army in 1987 and was discharged from service in 1993 on medical grounds after being placed in a "Low Medical Category" following a seizure-related condition. He challenged the discharge before the Armed Forces Tribunal, arguing he was never given a show-cause notice or referred to an Invalidating Medical Board before being discharged, but the Tribunal ruled against him on three occasions between 2011 and 2014.
The Supreme Court held that the appellant's discharge had been wrongly treated as falling under the Army Rules' residual "all other classes of discharge" clause (Rule 13(3)(III)(v)), when it actually fell under the specific "medically unfit for further service" clause (Rule 13(3)(III)(iii)), which legally requires a recommendation from an Invalidating Medical Board before discharge. Since no such Board was convened, the discharge was not legally sustainable. However, instead of ordering reinstatement, the Court applied Army Order 46 of 1980 to hold that the appellant was entitled to be deemed in service for 10 years (the minimum retention period for his rank), making him eligible for pension (in addition to the disability pension already granted) along with three years of arrears of pension, though not back-pay for the discharge period.
When a government or military employee is discharged for medical unfitness, the law requires that the specific statutory procedure for that type of discharge (such as referral to a medical board) be followed, mislabeling a discharge under a generic catch-all provision instead of the applicable specific one can render it invalid, even years after the fact.
