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, a Territorial Army officer commissioned in 1978, was repeatedly denied promotion to the rank of Colonel between 2000 and 2003 after being graded 'Z' (unfit for promotion) in five successive Selection Board proceedings. He filed statutory and non-statutory complaints, and eventually a petition (later transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal) alleging he had been unfairly passed over while another officer (respondent No. 2) was promoted. The Tribunal dismissed his case in 2017, and he appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court examined the sealed Selection Board records and found the appellant was indeed graded 'Z' in all five board proceedings between 2000 and 2003. However, it discovered that in the June 2001 selection round, respondent No. 2 had also initially been graded 'Z' but the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) later exercised his power under the Defence Services Regulations to upgrade that grading to 'B', resulting in his promotion. Since the same reconsideration was never extended to the appellant for that same round, the Court held this was unequal treatment and directed the COAS to reconsider the appellant's June 2001 grading within three months, while otherwise upholding the Tribunal's decision.
Where a competent authority has discretion to override or upgrade a selection outcome for one candidate in a batch, fairness requires that the same reconsideration process be applied equally to other similarly placed candidates from the same selection round.
