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 Bihar Public Service Commission declared the results of its 53rd to 55th Combined (Mains) Competitive Examinations, held in 2012, after moderating marks across different optional subjects. The candidates argued that the Commission should have used "scaling," as the Supreme Court suggested in Sanjay Singh (2007), and that an earlier High Court order required it to follow that route. The High Court refused to interfere, and the candidates appealed.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. It held that the earlier High Court order left the Commission flexible and did not bind it to any particular method. It read Sanjay Singh as deciding only that scaling was unsuitable for common compulsory papers, not that moderation must be used for common papers and scaling for different subjects. The choice between such methods is a question for expert bodies, and courts should interfere only for arbitrariness or mala fides, neither of which was alleged. The absence of detailed reasons in the Commission's resolution did not by itself justify interference. The interim orders were vacated, and the questions of impleadment and the court's power to mould relief were left for another case.
Courts generally leave technical decisions about how exam marks are evaluated to the expert body that runs the exam, and step in only if the decision is arbitrary, biased or unreasonable. A precedent is read in light of its own facts unless it clearly lays down a rule.
