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 moreOver 90 candidates who sat the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Main Examination 2017 challenged the entire evaluation process after only 9 out of 1,195 candidates (a pass rate of about 0.7%) qualified for the viva-voce interview stage, despite 107 posts being vacant. They alleged the marking had no fixed criteria or model answer key and was unduly harsh. The Supreme Court had a retired judge, Justice (Retd.) A.K. Sikri, independently examine a sample of answer scripts, and he found the evaluation method itself fair and non-discriminatory (multiple examiners each checking the same question across all scripts to ensure uniformity), but concluded that marking on the Civil Law-I and Civil Law-II papers had been unrealistically strict given the limited time candidates had to answer lengthy, descriptive questions.
The Supreme Court held that the selection process and evaluation method were not arbitrary or discriminatory, there was no "examiner variability" (different examiners grading inconsistently) since one examiner graded one specific question across all candidates' scripts uniformly, but the marking was nonetheless objectively too strict for everyone, causing a disproportionately low pass rate. Relying on its own precedent permitting "moderation" (as opposed to "scaling," which is used only when candidates sit different optional subjects), and invoking its special constitutional power under Article 142 to do complete justice, the Court adopted one of Justice Sikri's suggested remedies: awarding 20 grace marks in Civil Law-I and 10 grace marks in Civil Law-II to every candidate. It rejected the candidates' demand for a full re-evaluation by an independent committee (since the recruitment rules had no such provision) and also rejected their request to disclose written-exam marks before the viva-voce, holding that doing so could bias interviewers. The Court directed the High Court to prepare fresh results within two weeks, complete the whole selection process by 15 February 2020, and advertise any remaining vacant posts in a time-bound manner.
Courts are generally reluctant to order re-evaluation of exam answer scripts or disclosure of marks before an interview stage, since doing so can introduce new problems (delay, bias); but where objectively unrealistic time constraints and overly strict marking standards produce a pass rate so low as to be practically unworkable, the Supreme Court can use its special constitutional powers to order a one-time, uniform grace-mark adjustment for all candidates rather than a wholesale re-test.
