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 moreDisciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant, an employee of the Jharkhand Water Resources Department, in 1995 resulted in a 2007 punishment order imposing censure, stoppage of three annual increments, recovery of a sum of money, and denial of most pay during a suspension period. The Jharkhand High Court, in a 2016 order, found this punishment "harsh and shockingly disproportionate" and violative of the appellant's fundamental rights, quashed the 2007 punishment order, and directed the Deputy Secretary to pass a fresh order only on the quantum of punishment within a set period. The appellant approached the Supreme Court concerned that the department might treat the High Court's order as license to reopen the entire disciplinary case rather than merely revisit the punishment.
The Supreme Court condoned the delay, granted leave, and clarified the scope of the High Court's 2016 order: it had only quashed the punishment order as disproportionate and directed the authority to decide afresh on the quantum of punishment: it did not permit the disciplinary proceedings themselves to be reopened or the charges re-examined. The Court directed the departmental authority to act strictly within that limited mandate, confirming there was no liberty to initiate or continue fresh disciplinary proceedings, and disposed of the appeal and any pending applications accordingly.
When a court quashes only the punishment in a disciplinary matter for being disproportionate, the department's power on remand is limited to deciding a fresh, proportionate punishment: it cannot use that opportunity to reopen or relitigate the underlying charges unless the court's order specifically allows it.
