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 moreA judicial officer serving as Additional District and Sessions Judge was compulsorily retired at age 56 after a Screening Committee and the Full Court of the Allahabad High Court reviewed his entire service record, including a censure entry recorded following a vigilance enquiry into a controversial acquittal he had granted as a Chief Judicial Magistrate. He challenged the retirement, arguing his integrity had been certified in most of his annual confidential reports and that a bona fide error of judgment in a single case should not justify such a severe step, especially since he had later been promoted and the censure was never formally challenged. The Allahabad High Court dismissed his challenge, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that judicial review of a compulsory retirement order is extremely narrow, limited to checking whether the decision-making process (not the decision's correctness) was followed properly, and courts cannot sit as an appellate authority re-assessing the officer's service record. It found that his performance record rated him only "fair" or "good" for most years, the censure entry regarding his integrity was never actually expunged or challenged, and a single credible adverse entry on integrity can by itself justify compulsory retirement of a judicial officer, since a later promotion does not wash away that entry ("washed-off theory" rejected). The Court emphasized that judicial officers must be held to a uniquely high standard of integrity because they discharge a public trust central to the justice delivery system, and found no arbitrariness, mala fide, or failure to consider relevant material in the Screening Committee's and Full Court's decision. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the compulsory retirement order upheld.
Courts give very limited scope for challenging a compulsory retirement order of a judicial officer approved by the Full Court of a High Court: a single credible adverse entry about integrity, even if old, can justify such retirement, and a later promotion does not erase its significance.
