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, an Indian Forest Service officer facing a corruption prosecution, was considered by a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), but the result was kept in a "sealed cover" rather than acted upon because of the pending criminal case. The Central Administrative Tribunal had ruled in the officer's favour, ordering the sealed cover opened, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed that order and upheld the sealed-cover approach. The officer argued that the sealed-cover procedure had been invoked prematurely, since no chargesheet had been filed at the time of the DPC, while the State argued the CBI had already completed its investigation and filed its report before the DPC met.
The Supreme Court held that, applying the government's own office memoranda and settled case law, the sealed cover procedure had in fact been correctly invoked because the CBI's final investigation report had been submitted to the court before the DPC convened, so there was no fault with that part of the High Court's ruling. However, the Court found real merit in a separate argument: official guidelines require a sealed-cover case to be reviewed every six months to assess whether continued denial of promotion remains justified, and no such periodic review had ever been conducted since the first DPC in 2011, despite delays largely attributable to the State Government and despite other developments (such as co-accused persons being discharged and promoted) that undercut the case for continued denial. The Court therefore disposed of the appeals by directing the authorities to consider the appellant for ad-hoc promotion within one month, taking all these circumstances into account, and closed the related contempt petitions, with no order as to costs.
Even where keeping a government employee's promotion result in a "sealed cover" during a pending criminal case is technically valid, the employing authority cannot leave it sealed indefinitely: it is legally bound to periodically review the case (typically every six months) and consider ad-hoc promotion if the justification for continued denial has weakened.
