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 filed a public-interest writ petition alleging that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was failing to stop rampant illegal construction and encroachment inside the protected Tughlakabad Fort in Delhi. The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition early on by simply asking the ASI to "look into" the grievance, prompting the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court. Over more than a decade, the Supreme Court itself took over supervision of the matter, vacating a stay that had let encroachment continue, repeatedly ordering no further construction, and directing the ASI to survey and report on encroachers, but the ASI repeatedly failed to comply, even after a cost was imposed on it and a contempt petition was filed (and later dropped).
The Court recorded that it had already, through its own series of orders over the years, firmly established that protecting Tughlakabad Fort is imperative, that the earlier stay permitting encroachment was wrong and had been vacated, and that no further construction should occur. Since the ASI's continuing non-compliance was now simply a matter of monitoring and enforcement rather than deciding any fresh legal question, the Court held that this day-to-day monitoring could be more practically handled by the Delhi High Court, from where the case had originated. It therefore transferred the case back to the High Court for continued monitoring of compliance, while formally disposing of the civil appeal and the transfer case before itself.
Courts sometimes handle slow-moving enforcement failures by repeated monitoring orders over the years (a "continuing mandamus"), and once the core legal questions are settled, routine supervision can be handed back to a lower court: citizens shouldn't assume a case is being dropped just because the Supreme Court transfers ongoing monitoring elsewhere.
