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 appellants were long-time tenants of shops located in Gurudwara Singh Sabha at Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab, whose tenancies came under the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) after 1978. In 1998, Punjab enacted the Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997, which created a fast, summary eviction procedure for unauthorised occupants of religious-institution property, distinct from the ordinary, slower procedure under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. When SGPC initiated eviction proceedings against them under this special Act, the appellants challenged the Act's validity before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, arguing it unfairly singled out tenants of religious properties for harsher, faster eviction than other tenants, violating Article 14. The High Court dismissed their writ petitions, and they appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the validity of the Religious Premises Act. It held that religious institutions serve a public purpose and the State has a legitimate interest in protecting their properties from mismanagement and prolonged unauthorised occupation, which justifies a reasonable classification distinguishing their tenants from ordinary private tenants. Drawing on precedent (including the Constitution Bench ruling in Ashoka Marketing Ltd. on the Public Premises Act), the Court reasoned that a later, special enactment addressing a specific public-interest concern can validly prevail over, and operate alongside, an earlier general rent-control law without offending Article 14, so long as the classification has a rational nexus to the law's objective. The Court also noted that full judicial review remained available to affected tenants through the ordinary appeal and writ process, which preserved fairness despite the summary procedure.
A law that treats tenants of religious or public institutions differently from ordinary private tenants is not automatically discriminatory: if the differential treatment serves a genuine public purpose (such as protecting religious trust property from being lost to mismanagement) and the affected person still has access to appeal and judicial review, courts will generally uphold it as a valid classification under Article 14 rather than strike it down.
