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 moreA batch of roughly 73 Short Service Commission Officers of the Indian Army, mostly women (SSCWOs), sought Permanent Commission (PC) after the Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed their applications, holding that denial of PC was due to lower comparative merit rather than discrimination. Some male officers commissioned alongside them also challenged the same Tribunal judgments. The women officers argued their service records (Annual Confidential Reports, opportunities for career-enhancing courses, and evaluation criteria) were shaped for years under an assumption that they would never be eligible for PC, unfairly depressing their merit scores once PC was finally opened to them.
The Supreme Court found that the evaluation framework used to assess the women officers lacked the depth and rigour applied to their male counterparts and was rooted in assumptions that entrenched career disadvantages, including that their ACRs were written assuming no career progression, they were systematically excluded from criteria appointments and career-enhancing courses, and this depressed their merit scores. The Court held the 250-vacancy annual ceiling for PC is not rigid and can be breached where the selection process was unfair, and rejected the male officers' claim that they had a legitimate expectation of exclusively-male vacancies. Invoking Article 142 to do complete justice, the Court allowed the women officers' appeals, dismissed the male officers' appeals, and issued detailed directions: existing PC grants stand undisturbed; released SSCWOs get deemed 20-years' qualifying service for pension purposes; SSCWOs meeting the 60% cut-off in the 2020/2021 Selection Boards get PC (subject to medical/vigilance clearance); and the ACR evaluation method must be reviewed going forward for future batches.
Facially neutral or "merit-based" evaluation criteria can still be unconstitutional if the underlying assessment framework was built on assumptions that structurally disadvantaged one group (here, women officers); courts can use Article 142 to fashion practical, forward-looking remedies rather than leaving such systemic unfairness uncorrected.
