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 appellants had been working as Teacher Grade-III (General) in Rajasthan after a 2008 selection process. A High Court order later revised the merit list because one question had been incorrectly scored, and as a result the appellants, originally selected, were sought to be removed from their posts. The High Court rejected the appellants' challenge to their ouster, leading 18 of them to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that there were admittedly several vacant Teacher Grade-III posts in the state, that the appellants had continued working in these posts throughout the litigation, and that only a small group of 18 appellants were actually before the Court. Exercising its special "complete justice" power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed the State to continue the appellants' service, treating them as validly selected and appointed with effect from the date their appeal was filed, bringing the litigation to a final end for them. The Court was careful to clarify that this relief was based on the peculiar facts of the case and was limited strictly to the appellants before it, though it left open for the High Court to grant similar relief to other similarly-placed teachers still litigating there.
The Supreme Court's Article 142 power allows it to craft a practical, case-specific resolution, such as protecting employees who have continued working for years during litigation, even where a stricter legal entitlement might otherwise be in question; such relief is typically confined to the specific litigants before the Court rather than creating a general precedent.
