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 moreIn 1992, Haryana amended the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, to expand the definition of "shamilat deh" (village common land) to include land that villagers had contributed to a common pool for community purposes. Landowners challenged this before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was ultimately heard by a Full Bench. After earlier rounds of litigation (including a 1998 Supreme Court remand to reconsider the amendment against Article 31-A of the Constitution, which shields certain agrarian reform laws from being struck down as unconstitutional), the High Court's Full Bench partly ruled in favour of the landowners. The State's appeal against that ruling was first allowed by the Supreme Court in 2022 (upholding the amendment as valid), but that 2022 judgment was later recalled on a review petition in 2024, and the appeal was reheard afresh by this bench.
After rehearing the case, the Supreme Court examined its own earlier Constitution Bench precedents on Article 31-A and found the High Court's Full Bench had correctly applied them, and had also been legally right in relying on the doctrine of stare decisis, since the Punjab and Haryana High Court's interpretation of the "shamilat deh" provisions had been consistently followed in over 100 prior judgments, that long-settled position should not be disturbed absent clear error. The Court held there was no infirmity in the High Court's Full Bench judgment and dismissed the State of Haryana's appeal, effectively confirming the High Court's ruling and reversing the outcome of the recalled 2022 Supreme Court judgment.
Long-standing, consistently applied interpretations of a law by a High Court carry real legal weight (the doctrine of stare decisis) and should not be casually overturned; and even a Supreme Court judgment is not always final. It can be recalled on review and reheard afresh where warranted.
