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 Delhi Police constable was dismissed from service in 2017 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police without a departmental inquiry, invoking the special constitutional power under Article 311(2)'s second proviso, clause (b), which allows skipping an inquiry when the authority believes it is "not reasonably practicable" to hold one. The stated reason was a fear that the constable, who was facing a criminal FIR and was in custody at the time, might threaten or influence witnesses. His departmental appeal, and later his challenges before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court, were all rejected, so he approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the dismissal order was invalid because the disciplinary authority had not recorded any specific instance or concrete material showing actual intimidation, threats, or inducement of the complainant or witnesses: a mere apprehension or presumption is not enough to invoke the extraordinary power to bypass a full departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b). Relying on its own precedents (including Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel and Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab), the Court reiterated that this constitutional safeguard cannot be dispensed with lightly, arbitrarily, or without objective, recorded satisfaction based on real material. It quashed the dismissal order and the orders of the CAT and High Court upholding it, and directed the appellant's reinstatement with continuity of service and full consequential benefits, though back wages were restricted to 50% given the pending criminal case against him. The Court clarified this was without prejudice to the department's right to still hold a proper departmental inquiry.
A government employee cannot be dismissed by skipping the mandatory disciplinary inquiry unless the authority records concrete, specific reasons, not mere apprehension, showing why holding an inquiry was genuinely impracticable; courts will strike down such dismissals and order reinstatement if the stated justification is vague or unsupported by evidence.
