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 moreRespondent No.1 sat the 2011 Tripura Judicial Service (Grade-I) recruitment examination but was declared "not qualified" in the main written exam, falling five marks short of the cut-off needed for an interview. After inspecting his answer scripts under the RTI Act, he claimed some correct answers had been wrongly marked incorrect, and his writ petition and a subsequent Special Leave Petition seeking re-evaluation were both dismissed. He then filed a review petition, which the Gauhati High Court allowed, directing re-evaluation of his papers: a decision the Tripura High Court (through its Registrar General, representing the examining body) challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the specific disputed answers itself and found that, even assuming some merit in the candidate's complaints about individual questions, he had no statutory or rule-based right to re-evaluation under the governing 2003 Rules, and the examining body's assessment on subjective, non-objective-type questions could not simply be second-guessed by the Court. The Court also noted an internal inconsistency in the High Court's review order: it had reasoned the original complaint concerned only one paper, yet directed re-evaluation of other papers as well. Because there was no right to revaluation and the High Court's reasoning on its own terms was flawed, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's review order, and dismissed the respondent's review petition, with no order as to costs.
Candidates in a competitive examination cannot claim re-evaluation of answer scripts as of right unless the governing rules specifically provide for it: courts will defer to the examining body's assessment, especially on subjective questions, rather than substitute their own view of what mark should have been awarded.
