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 appellants, Scheduled Caste constables/head constables in the UP Police, appeared in a limited departmental examination for promotion to Sub-Inspector, which required a minimum of 50% marks in each of four separate subjects. After an earlier Supreme Court order corrected 18 erroneously-set questions and a fresh select list was issued, the appellants still fell short of the 50% threshold in two specific subjects (Numerical/Mental Ability and Mental Aptitude/Reasoning), and argued these two subjects should be treated as one combined "paper" so their aggregate score would qualify them.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that two subjects carrying marks separately should be clubbed into one paper for the 50% cut-off, holding that the Rules clearly delineated four distinct subjects and required the minimum to be met "in each subject": the Rules' express language did not permit the appellants' proposed interpretation. The Court also rejected a separate plea for relaxed qualifying marks for reserved-category candidates, noting that while the State could have prescribed a relaxed criterion for SC/ST candidates, it had not done so, and the Court could not create one. All the connected appeals (and two related transferred writ petitions wrongly clubbed with an unrelated direct-recruitment case) were accordingly dismissed, with the Court also correcting its own earlier order to properly deal with the mis-clubbed transferred cases.
When eligibility rules specify a minimum qualifying mark "in each subject," courts will enforce that language strictly and will not permit candidates to combine or average scores across subjects to meet the threshold, and courts cannot grant relaxation in such merit-based criteria for reserved categories unless the government itself has framed such a relaxation.
