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 respondent, a practicing advocate, applied for selection to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service through a Public Service Commission examination. She did not appear in the list of successful candidates, and on inquiry learned her Law Paper-1 answer sheet had been invalidated for violating the Commission's instructions. The Madras High Court, after examining her answer sheet and finding she had underlined portions in pencil (violating a rule barring use of pencils for any purpose), nonetheless granted her relief on humanitarian/sympathetic grounds, treating the violation as inadvertent. The State appealed to the Supreme Court against this direction.
The Supreme Court held that the Commission's examination instructions have the force of law and must be strictly complied with, and that a High Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot relax or modify such mandatory instructions, even on sympathetic grounds. It held that despite the High Court itself finding a clear violation of the "no pencil" rule, granting relief anyway, on the reasoning that the mistake was inadvertent, effectively rewrote a binding rule and would set a problematic precedent for other disqualified candidates. Citing the principle that "hard cases make bad law," the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the State's appeal, restoring the invalidation of her answer sheet.
Candidates in competitive public examinations must strictly follow all examination instructions (such as prohibitions on specific writing materials), because courts will not relax binding, mandatory rules even for a sympathetic or inadvertent violation, since doing so risks unfairness to other candidates and undermines the integrity of the selection process.
