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 moreAn IPS officer serving as Inspector General of Police in Tamil Nadu was arrested in 2012 in connection with an extortion case linked to a large investment-fraud scandal, and was placed under suspension. A disciplinary charge memo was later issued against him in 2013. He challenged both the suspension and the charge memo before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which revoked his suspension but refused to quash the charge memo; the Madras High Court subsequently upheld the revocation of suspension and separately quashed the charge memo itself, finding it had not been properly approved by the disciplinary authority. The State of Tamil Nadu appealed to the Supreme Court against both parts of that High Court ruling.
On the charge memo, the Supreme Court held, following its earlier ruling in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, that the applicable disciplinary rules required the charge memo itself to be drawn up or approved by the disciplinary authority (here, the Chief Minister), and that approval merely for initiating proceedings was not enough; since that approval was never obtained for the charge memo, the High Court was right to quash it, though the State was given liberty to issue a fresh, properly approved charge memo. On suspension, the Court held that keeping an officer suspended for more than six years, with no evidence of any actual attempt to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, was an impermissibly prolonged suspension under the Court's precedent in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, and upheld the direction for reinstatement (while leaving the State free to post the officer to a non-sensitive role).
Disciplinary charge memos against government officers must be personally approved by the authority empowered to do so under the service rules, approval to merely start an inquiry is not a substitute, and prolonged suspension pending a criminal trial, without any concrete evidence of misconduct like evidence-tampering, cannot continue indefinitely.
