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 document available at the official `pdf_url` for this listing entry is not the underlying merits judgment in this appeal. It is a short corrigendum order dated 23 May 2025, correcting a typographical error in an earlier judgment and order of the same bench dated 20th May 2025. The correction itself was minor: paragraphs 27 and 29 of that earlier judgment had mistakenly referred to "Miscellaneous Case No. 9/2000 in respect of Crime Case No. 11/2000" when the correct references were to "Miscellaneous Case No. 9/2020 in respect of Crime Case No. 11/2020." The parties named in this order (Rajni versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.) do match the case list's `parties` field, so this is not a case-identity mismatch, but the substantive facts, arguments, and reasoning behind the underlying 20 May 2025 judgment are not contained in this particular PDF and could not be verified or summarised from it.
The Court simply directed its Registry to correct the identified typographical error in the earlier judgment and to "do the needful": no fresh legal issue was argued or decided in this order itself.
Not every document the Supreme Court's website links against a case listing is the full merits judgment: sometimes it is a subsequent administrative order (like a corrigendum) correcting a clerical mistake in an earlier ruling, and readers should not assume a linked PDF always contains the complete reasoning of a case.
