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 batch of contempt petitions arose out of a long-running dispute over appointment of Assistant Teachers in Uttar Pradesh under the Right to Education Act. The Supreme Court had, through a series of interim orders between 2014-2015, directed the State to appoint candidates who crossed certain cut-off marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test, and this ultimately merged into a final 2017 judgment. The petitioners, candidates who were part of a list of 12,091 persons found eligible for appointment, alleged the State had willfully violated these orders by not actually appointing all of them.
The Court traced the entire appointment process through multiple State affidavits and found that out of the 12,091 eligible candidates, only 391 (plus separate ad-hoc appointments) could actually be selected, because many did not participate in counselling, did not opt for certain districts, or did not meet district-specific cut-offs: reasons that had been on record since October 2016 and were never challenged until the contempt petitions were filed roughly a year later. Finding the State's explanation satisfactory and no person appointed outside the Court-mandated criteria, the Court held there was no violation of its orders and closed all the contempt petitions.
A contempt petition requires proof of wilful and deliberate disobedience of a court's specific directions: a petitioner's dissatisfaction with how an administrative selection process played out, without showing the authority exceeded or defied the court's actual mandate, will not succeed as contempt.
