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 Rail Land Development Authority (RLDA) issued a Request for Proposal for mixed-use commercial/residential development on a roughly 12.4-hectare railway land parcel near New Bijwasan Railway Station, Delhi, under an approved Master Plan. The land had originally been acquired as agricultural land in 1986, handed to the Railways in 2009 when it was barren/agricultural (not forest), and later got covered with vegetation over time. An original applicant challenged the RFP before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), arguing the land had since become forest land requiring Central Government permission under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 before any tree-cutting; the NGT dismissed the challenge, and two advocates who were not original parties before the NGT appealed to the Supreme Court instead.
The Supreme Court examined whether land not classified as forest or "deemed forest" at the time an approved Master Plan came into force could later be reclassified as forest simply because vegetation had grown on it. The Court held that the relevant date for determining "deemed forest" status is the date the governing Master Plan came into force, not some later point: a plot earmarked for development under a valid, binding Master Plan cannot subsequently be declared forest land so as to override that plan's statutory sanctity. It also cautioned that assessing whether land has forest-like characteristics must distinguish naturally evolved indigenous ecosystems from the spread of invasive species (which can actually signal ecological disturbance, not forest growth). Finding the project already included safeguards: a requirement to obtain all statutory forest/tree clearances before work, 20% of the area kept green, and undertakings for tree transplantation and compensatory afforestation. The Court upheld the NGT's finding that the land was not forest land, while directing that native/indigenous species be prioritized in transplantation and afforestation efforts going forward.
Land use planning gets legal certainty from the operative date of a validly approved Master Plan: later, incidental growth of vegetation cannot retroactively convert planned development land into protected forest land, though development projects still remain bound by environmental safeguards like afforestation and clearance requirements.
