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 appellant, a Forest Range Officer (FRO) in Andhra Pradesh, sought a declaration that FROs be treated as part of the "State Forest Service" so they could be considered for promotion to the Indian Forest Service (IFoS). The Central Administrative Tribunal ruled in his favour, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court reversed that decision, holding that the FRO cadre was not a Central Government-approved "State Forest Service" under the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. The appellant challenged the High Court's ruling before the Supreme Court.
The Court examined Rule 2(g) of the Recruitment Rules and the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1997, and held that the Andhra Pradesh Forest Service, including the FRO cadre under Class A, did qualify as a "State Forest Service," making its substantively appointed gazetted members eligible in principle for promotion to the IFoS. However, on the question of actual relief, the Court noted the appellant had delayed nearly seven years before raising his grievance in 2021, and that granting him promotion now would unfairly leapfrog several officers senior to him who had not had a chance to be considered under the correct interpretation of the rules. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's order and declared the legal position in the appellant's favour, but limited the practical relief to a direction that future promotion exercises must correctly treat FROs as part of the State Forest Service. It declined to unsettle past promotion rounds.
Winning a legal point does not automatically translate into a personal remedy. Courts weigh delay and the impact on third parties (here, senior colleagues) before granting retrospective relief, even where the underlying legal interpretation is decided in the petitioner's favour.
