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 moreSeveral unsuccessful candidates in the Delhi Judicial Service 2015 Examination jointly challenged the examination process in a batch of writ petitions. Their complaints included that the 40% minimum qualifying mark in each paper (especially Criminal Law) was too strict, that marks should be "moderated" to correct examiner bias, that one petitioner's 49.9% aggregate should be rounded up to 50% to qualify for interview, and that another petitioner who scored 37% in the viva voce (short of the 45% minimum) should still be declared qualified since many advertised posts remained unfilled.
The Supreme Court held that "moderation" (adjusting marks to offset different examiners' relative strictness/leniency) is only necessary when multiple examiners grade the same paper; here, since a single examiner graded each paper, there was no inter-examiner variability to correct, so no moderation was warranted. Relying on its own precedent, the Court held that rounding off marks (e.g., 49.9% to 50%) to meet a statutory minimum eligibility threshold is impermissible, as rules fixing minimum marks must be applied strictly without dilution. The Court also upheld the 40% paper-wise cut-off as a reasonable means of ensuring baseline competence across all subjects, even where it meant a candidate with high overall marks could fail by missing one subject's minimum by a small margin, and found no fault with the examination or interview process. All the writ petitions were accordingly dismissed on merits.
Minimum qualifying marks fixed by statutory examination rules must be met exactly: courts will not "round off" a near-miss score to help a candidate qualify, and claims of examiner bias only warrant correction ("moderation") where multiple examiners graded the same subject, not where a single examiner applied one consistent standard to everyone.
