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 Tripura government had begun recruiting "Enrolled Followers" (Group-D support staff such as cooks, ward-boys, and sweepers) for the Tripura State Rifles, and the appellants had already cleared the selection process and were placed on the panel, with only character verification remaining. Midway through, following a change in the state's political leadership after elections, the government adopted a new "National Recruitment Policy" and used it to first put the recruitment in abeyance and then cancel it outright, citing a general policy of making recruitment "more fair, open and transparent" without pointing to any actual defect in the ongoing process. The candidates challenged the cancellation before the Tripura High Court, which ruled against them.
The Supreme Court held that the National Recruitment Policy was merely an executive instruction under Article 166 and could not override or supplant a recruitment process already governed by statutory rules (the Tripura State Rifles Act and Rules): executive instructions can only supplement statutory rules, not defeat rights already accrued under them, especially at an advanced stage of selection. Since the State could not show that the ongoing process was unfair, non-transparent, or otherwise defective, cancelling it solely to implement a general policy change was arbitrary and violated the candidates' legitimate expectation of a fair conclusion to a process they had already substantially completed. The Court allowed the appeals, quashed the Abeyance and Cancellation Memoranda as they applied to the Enrolled Followers recruitment, and directed the State to finalize and complete that recruitment under the original Rules within two months.
A government cannot use a general policy change, introduced via executive instructions, to arbitrarily scrap a recruitment process that is already well underway and governed by statutory rules: candidates who have fairly progressed through a selection process have a legitimate expectation that it will be completed under the rules that governed it from the start.
