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 moreAfter Jammu and Kashmir was reorganised into Union Territories in 2019, the Union Government conducted a delimitation exercise (via 2020 and 2021 notifications) that increased the number of seats in the J&K Legislative Assembly. The petitioner argued that a similar delimitation exercise, mandated by Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (which was to raise Andhra Pradesh's assembly seats from 175 to 225 and Telangana's from 119 to 153), had never been carried out, and that excluding these two states while covering Jammu and Kashmir was arbitrary and discriminatory.
The Supreme Court held that Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act is expressly made "subject to" Article 170 of the Constitution, whose proviso constitutionally freezes any readjustment of seats in State Legislative Assemblies until census figures from the first census after 2026 are published, so no delimitation could lawfully occur for Andhra Pradesh or Telangana yet. It rejected the parity argument with Jammu and Kashmir because J&K, as a Union Territory, is governed by Article 239A rather than Article 170, making the two situations constitutionally distinct (a point already settled in the Court's earlier Haji Abdul Gani Khan judgment). The Court also rejected the "legitimate expectation" argument, holding that this doctrine cannot override an express constitutional bar. The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed.
A statutory promise (like a state reorganisation act's seat-increase provision) that is explicitly made "subject to" a constitutional provision cannot be enforced ahead of the constitutional condition being met, and the doctrine of "legitimate expectation" in administrative law can never be used to override a clear constitutional or statutory bar.
