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 was a large batch of petitions effectively seeking review of the Supreme Court's 2020 judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, which had held that judicial officers with prior Bar experience could not claim direct-recruitment District Judge posts reserved for practising advocates under Article 233(2) of the Constitution. Many petitioners argued that this three-judge ruling should have been decided by a five-judge Constitution Bench instead, since it interpreted a constitutional provision.
The Court noted that Article 145(3) of the Constitution requires a minimum of five judges to decide any case involving a substantial question of constitutional interpretation, yet the earlier Dheeraj Mor ruling on Article 233(2) had been decided by only three judges. Examining the two Constitution Bench precedents relied on by opponents of reconsideration (Rameshwar Dayal and Chandra Mohan), the Court found they addressed different questions and did not resolve the specific issues now raised. The Court therefore held that the questions of (i) whether judicial officers with seven years' prior Bar experience are eligible for direct recruitment, and (ii) whether eligibility is assessed at the time of appointment or application, are substantial constitutional questions requiring a five-judge Constitution Bench, and referred the matter accordingly.
Any Supreme Court ruling that interprets the meaning of a constitutional provision must, under Article 145(3), be decided by a bench of at least five judges: a smaller bench's interpretation on such questions can later be referred for reconsideration by a larger bench.
