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 moreGujarat allowed private parties to mine and process ordinary river sand (a "minor mineral") under State-granted leases, and some of these operators sold their processed sand to builders in other States such as Maharashtra. In 2010, the Gujarat Government passed a resolution and then amended its mining rules (inserting Rule 44-BB, later Rule 71) to completely prohibit the movement of sand beyond Gujarat's borders, making such transport a punishable offence even with a valid royalty pass. Affected leaseholders and traders challenged this ban in the Gujarat High Court, which struck down the rule as going beyond the State's rule-making powers and as violating the constitutional guarantee of free trade and commerce between States (Article 301). The State of Gujarat appealed to the Supreme Court, while similar bans upheld by the Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts formed part of the broader dispute.
The Supreme Court held that while the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 empowers State Governments to make rules regulating mining, transport and storage of minor minerals (to prevent illegal mining, for instance), this delegated power cannot be stretched into a total prohibition on taking a lawfully mined, legal commodity across State borders: that would directly offend the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout India guaranteed by Article 301. The Court reasoned that restrictions on inter-State movement of goods can only be justified under Article 304 through a validly enacted law of the State Legislature (not subordinate rules) and only on specific constitutional grounds such as a genuine scarcity of the resource, which Gujarat had not established here, since nothing stopped it from capping how much sand could be excavated rather than banning its onward sale outside the State. The Court affirmed the Gujarat High Court's view, disapproved the contrary view taken by the Andhra Pradesh and Madras High Courts, and dismissed the State's appeals.
A State cannot use subordinate mining rules to completely cut off the sale of a legally extracted natural resource to buyers in other States: blanket export bans of this kind infringe the constitutional right to free trade across India and must instead be enacted, if at all, as a properly justified State law meeting the strict conditions of Article 304.
