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 moreThis order arises in the long-running Prakash Singh police reforms case, in which the Supreme Court in 2006 had directed, among other things, that a State's Director General of Police (DGP) be chosen by UPSC-based merit and get a minimum two-year tenure once appointed. A 2018 clarificatory order on this point led states and the UPSC to start treating "two years of residual service before retirement" as a precondition for even being considered (empanelled) for the DGP post. The original petitioners filed an application (I.A. No.24616 of 2019) pointing out that this was shutting out many senior, eligible, and meritorious officers who had less than two years left before retirement.
The Court held that its 2006 directions never meant to require a two-year window of service remaining before an officer could even be considered for DGP: they meant only that whoever is selected must get a guaranteed two-year tenure in the post, regardless of their retirement date. Treating two years of residual service as an eligibility filter for empanelment was never intended and was wrongly narrowing the pool of eligible officers. The Court therefore clarified its earlier 3 July 2018 order to say that UPSC's merit-based empanelment and the State's recommendation for DGP should require only six months of residual service, not two years, and disposed of all the pending applications on this basis. This clarified position was to hold until the Court finally decided a separate pending writ petition challenging state Police Acts that conflict with the Prakash Singh directions.
A Supreme Court "clarification" order in an ongoing public-interest case can materially change how a rule is applied on the ground: here, narrowing the eligibility bar for DGP appointments from two years to six months of remaining service, directly widening the pool of officers states and UPSC must consider for the post.
