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 appellant, a highly credentialed 1991-batch IAS officer in the Kerala cadre, was considered for promotion to the apex Chief Secretary grade. Because 90% of his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) were not available, the Screening Committee still reviewed him as a "special case" on his available records but found his performance "not noteworthy" and declined to recommend him. A subsequent Review Committee, after a hearing, upheld this decision, citing poor ratings on leadership and interpersonal skills, unauthorised absence from duty for about a year, and a pattern of alleged indiscipline. The officer argued the Committees wrongly relied on adverse remarks from before his 2016 promotion, which should have already "lost their sting," and on materials never properly part of his ACRs.
The Supreme Court applied its settled principle (from Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu) that adverse ACR entries from before an officer's last promotion generally lose their weight for a later promotion decision, unless they involve dishonesty or lack of integrity. However, the Court found the Review Committee's decision was not based solely on these old entries. It was substantially anchored in the officer's own post-promotion record, particularly his unauthorised year-long absence from duty in 2019-20, which had never been regularised. Since courts only interfere with promotion committee decisions if they are shown to be irrational (Wednesbury unreasonable) or made in bad faith, and no such flaw was shown here, the Court held the denial of promotion was a fair and objective assessment, not arbitrary. The appeal was dismissed, though the Court noted the officer remained free to seek fresh consideration once his ACR record was completed.
Courts give wide latitude to expert promotion committees in government service: a denial of promotion will be upheld as long as it is not shown to be irrational or made in bad faith, and even a very accomplished officer's post-promotion conduct (such as unexplained long absence from duty) can validly outweigh past merit.
