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 moreDecades of public interest litigation and suo motu proceedings in the Rajasthan High Court had tried, without much success, to stop encroachments in the catchment area of Ramgarh Dam near Jaipur, once a major source of drinking water for the city and a venue for the 1982 Asian Games, now left completely dry. The National Institute of Medical Sciences University (NIMS) had built a large university campus on a specific plot (Khasra No. 526) in this catchment area, despite the land never having been formally allotted to it, and had encroached on roughly 8,125 square metres beyond what the authorities had even considered. NIMS's writ petitions and appeals against the Jaipur Development Authority's demolition order were dismissed at every level of the Rajasthan courts, leading to this final appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that NIMS had no legal right to the land: it had never properly applied to the Collector (the only competent authority) for allotment, its later approach to the Chief Minister was legally irrelevant, and in any event the land was pasture land on which no occupancy ("Khatedari") rights could ever accrue by law. The Court found NIMS's conduct "brazen," noting it had built extensively while merely assuming its unanswered applications amounted to tacit approval, and held that unauthorized construction on government/public land must be demolished as a matter of rule of law, relying on its own precedents in M.I. Builders and Jagpal Singh. The petitions were dismissed with an unusually heavy cost of Rs. 10 lakh per petition for the encroachment, and the Court directed the Jaipur Development Authority, assisted by the State Government and police, to demolish the unauthorized construction by 30 November 2017.
Silence from a government authority on an application is never a licence to presume approval and build on public land: unauthorized construction on encroached government or catchment land will be ordered demolished regardless of how large or long-standing the structure has become.
