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 passed his Intermediate examination in 2002 and went on to complete a B.A. (2005), an M.A. (2007), and an LL.B. (2011), intending to become a lawyer. Nine years after his Intermediate exam, the education board abruptly cancelled his 2002 results and confiscated his certificate, without any prior notice or hearing, on the ground that he had simultaneously appeared for a Class X-equivalent exam under two different boards. This cancellation effectively wiped out every degree he had earned since. His writ petition and intra-court appeal before the Allahabad High Court were both dismissed.
The Supreme Court found two independent, fatal flaws in the board's action. First, despite being specifically asked in Court, neither the High Court nor the respondents could point to any actual Regulation that prohibited a student from appearing in two different boards' examinations in the same year, so the board's stated reason for cancellation had no legal basis at all. Second, the cancellation order was passed nine years later without any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing, violating basic principles of natural justice; the Court also noted the applicable Regulation required a three-member committee to decide such "unfair means" cases, which was never constituted. The Court allowed the appeal with costs, quashed the cancellation orders, reversed the High Court's judgment, and held the appellant entitled to all consequential benefits (i.e., his results and subsequent degrees stand restored).
A government or educational authority cannot cancel a long-settled exam result or take away an individual's qualifications years later without first pointing to a specific rule that was actually violated, and without giving the affected person notice and a fair opportunity to be heard.
