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 judicial magistrate appointed in 1985, was suspended in 2001 and dismissed from service in 2004 after it was found that he had a proximate personal relationship with a lady lawyer and had passed judicial orders favouring her clients, including her mother and brother. His writ petition against the dismissal was rejected by the High Court, and the Supreme Court had earlier limited its notice only to the question of whether the punishment (dismissal) was too harsh, not to the underlying findings of misconduct.
The Supreme Court held that the first and foremost quality required of a judge is integrity, and that judicial officers are held to a higher standard of conduct than ordinary public servants. It clarified that "gratification" justifying dismissal under the relevant disciplinary rules is not limited to monetary gratification: it can also include gratification of power, position, or personal relationships, and deciding cases to benefit someone due to a personal relationship amounts to such gratification. Finding the officer's conduct incompatible with the integrity expected of a judge, the Court held no leniency was warranted and dismissed the appeal, upholding the dismissal from service.
Judges and judicial officers are held to an exceptionally high standard of integrity, and misusing judicial office to benefit someone due to a personal relationship, not just for money, can justify the harshest disciplinary penalty, namely dismissal from service.
