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 moreAgriculturists from Sangrur, Punjab, and a nearby school (Vasant Valley Public School) challenged a Change of Land Use (CLU) granted in December 2021 allowing Shree Cement North Private Limited to set up a cement-related industrial unit close to their farmland and the school, arguing it was granted without complying with the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, and that a polluting "Red category" industry could not be sited in a rural agricultural zone. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed their writ petitions and upheld the CLU. While their appeals were pending in the Supreme Court, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) issued a revised industrial classification in January 2025 reclassifying "stand-alone grinding units without a captive power plant" from "Red" (highly polluting) to "Orange" (less regulated) category, and the Ministry of Environment issued notifications relaxing siting safeguards accordingly, prompting the same appellants to also file writ petitions under Article 32 challenging this reclassification.
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals, holding that the CLU could not override the statutory siting norms and regulatory discipline required under the Punjab Regional and Town Planning Act and the 1998 pollution board notification, and that prior environmental clearance safeguards must operate in advance rather than being assumed to be curable later; it accordingly quashed the CLU and the connected pollution consent that had been granted on that basis. On the separate writ petitions, the Court held that the CPCB's 2025 reclassification of grinding units from "Red" to "Orange", made while the appeal was pending, could not be sustained because it diluted preventive environmental protections guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution; the Court emphasized that environmental harm is often irreversible and regulation must be preventive, not reactive, and that while courts ordinarily defer to expert regulatory bodies, judicial intervention becomes a constitutional duty when a relaxation lowers the constitutional minimum of protection for life and health. It therefore quashed both the CPCB reclassification and the two consequential government notifications relaxing siting safeguards, while clarifying that the authorities remain free to undertake a fresh, properly reasoned and scientifically substantiated classification exercise in future.
Environmental and land-use approvals for polluting industries must strictly follow statutory siting safeguards before the fact, not be justified afterward through promised future compliance; and regulators cannot use a mid-litigation reclassification to retroactively dilute pollution-control protections for citizens living near an industrial site. Courts will step in when such relaxations undercut the constitutional right to a healthy environment.
