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 respondents were lecturers appointed in 1993 at a private college in Uttar Pradesh that had lost government financial aid after a 2000 policy change. For over 16 years, they repeatedly petitioned the High Court seeking creation of sanctioned posts and payment of regular salary from government funds; each time the High Court directed the education authorities to "reconsider," the authorities issued a fresh rejection, and the cycle repeated through at least three rounds of writ petitions. Eventually the lecturers filed a contempt petition against the Principal Secretary, Higher Education (the appellant), for non-compliance, and the High Court directed the contempt case be listed for framing of charges: a step the official challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court did not decide the merits of the salary dispute but criticized the pattern of the High Court repeatedly issuing vague "reconsider" directions instead of deciding the underlying legal right, calling this "consider jurisprudence" counterproductive and a bad practice that shifts the burden back to authorities without resolution. It found the High Court's contempt-related orders lacked the clarity needed to hold someone in contempt, since contempt requires a clear, specific direction that was disobeyed, which was absent here. The Court permitted the lecturers to challenge the government's latest (09.05.2025) rejection order through a fresh writ petition, directed the High Court to decide that writ petition together with the pending contempt proceedings without remanding it back to the authorities again, and asked the Chief Justice to ensure the case is finally decided by 30 April 2026 given the prolonged delay.
Courts should give clear, specific, decisive directions rather than repeatedly asking authorities to "reconsider" a matter: vague back-and-forth directions waste years, and contempt proceedings cannot succeed unless the original court order was itself clear and specific about what compliance required.
