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 practicing advocate of the Rajasthan High Court filed a writ petition challenging a May 2017 notification appointing two retired District Judges as Additional Judges of the Rajasthan High Court. He argued, first, that their appointments (running only until they would turn 62, which was less than two years) violated Article 224 of the Constitution, which he said required a minimum two-year term, and second, that since both had already retired from judicial service before the notification was issued, they were not eligible under Article 217(2)(a), which requires having "held" judicial office.
The Supreme Court rejected both challenges. On the tenure point, it held that Article 224(1) only fixes a maximum period of "not exceeding two years" for an Additional Judge's appointment, not a minimum, so an appointment running only until the judge's retirement age (shorter than two years) was perfectly valid; the Constitution Bench ruling in S.P. Gupta did not lay down any minimum-term requirement. On the eligibility point, the Court held that Article 217(2)(a) requires a person to have "held" judicial office for at least ten years at some point, not that they must still be in judicial service on the date of the notification: the two respondents had already been in the "zone of consideration" and recommended while still serving, and retirement before the notification was finally issued (due to the normal time taken in the appointment process) did not disqualify them. The Court distinguished the Kumar Padma Prasad precedent as dealing with a different question. The petition was dismissed, though the Court added observations urging that judicial appointment timelines be expedited to avoid such situations.
The constitutional cap of "two years" for Additional Judges is a ceiling, not a floor: a shorter appointment (e.g., ending at the judge's retirement age) is lawful; and for eligibility purposes, what matters is that a person held the required judicial office for ten years at some point before being recommended, not that they are still in service on the date the formal appointment notification is eventually issued.
