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 moreThis is a set of applications (I.A. No. 2310/2008 and connected IAs) decided within the decades-long M.C. Mehta environmental PIL (W.P.(C) No. 4677 of 1985), this time concerning "Kant Enclave": land in Haryana's Aravalli hills that developer R. Kant & Co. was building a Film Studio and Allied Complex on. The land had been notified as protected "forest" under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, but Haryana's Town & Country Planning Department kept supporting the developer's construction even as the Forest Department objected, and the Court's own 1996 order had separately banned construction within 5 km of nearby Badkal Lake and Surajkund. Construction nonetheless continued over the following decades amid this bureaucratic tug-of-war.
The Supreme Court held that land notified under the PLP Act must be treated as "forest"/"forest land," so any non-forest construction on it without prior Central Government clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was illegal, making R. Kant & Co.'s construction, and the Haryana Town & Country Planning Department's support for it, unlawful and in defiance of the Court's own earlier orders. The Court ordered demolition of the illegal post-18 August 1992 constructions, directed R. Kant & Co. to fully refund affected purchasers' investment with 18% annual interest, fixed demolition/construction costs at roughly ₹50 lakh to be split equally between R. Kant & Co. and the State's Town & Country Planning Department, and, invoking the "Polluter Pays" principle, directed R. Kant & Co. to deposit ₹5 crore (10% of its claimed ₹50 crore development cost) into the Aravalli Rehabilitation Fund for ecological restoration, with compliance deadlines set for October-December 2018 and the matter listed thereafter only to monitor compliance.
Land once statutorily notified as protected forest remains legally "forest" regardless of later administrative permissions or years of unchecked construction: developers and purchasers who build or buy on such land, even with local government cooperation, risk demolition and financial liability under the Polluter Pays principle, and government departments that favor development over a standing conservation notification can themselves be held accountable for the resulting harm.
