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 moreA candidate's selection as a police constable (driver) in Madhya Pradesh was rejected by a screening committee on the ground that he had criminal antecedents. He had been an accused in a case involving kidnapping and rape of a minor girl, though later acquitted on benefit of doubt. A Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the rejection, but a Division Bench reversed this, holding the acquittal should be treated as a clean and honourable acquittal and directing the police department to reconsider his candidature. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court against this reversal.
The Supreme Court held that assessing a candidate's fitness and suitability for a disciplined police force is squarely within the domain of the employer/screening committee, and courts should not substitute their own judgment for that of the appointing authority unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, whimsical, or irrational. It found the screening committee had genuinely applied its mind, weighing the seriousness of the allegations (kidnapping and rape of a minor) and the fact that the acquittal was only on benefit of doubt, not a clean exoneration on merits. The Court held the Division Bench of the High Court had wrongly intruded into the screening committee's discretionary domain without a valid legal basis for doing so, and restored the Single Judge's order upholding the rejection. The appeal was allowed and the Division Bench's judgment was set aside.
Courts will not second-guess a police recruitment screening committee's assessment of a candidate's character and suitability, including its view of a past criminal case ending in acquittal, as long as the committee acted in good faith and its decision was not arbitrary or irrational; an acquittal on benefit of doubt is not automatically the same as an "honourable acquittal" that erases concerns about moral character for a disciplined force.
