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 moreFollowing the Kargil War, an Army restructuring committee recommended creating over a thousand additional Colonel-rank vacancies to lower the age profile of commanding officers, especially in Combat Arms. The Government released these vacancies in two phases: the first phase (2004) was distributed pro-rata across all Army streams including Service Corps officers like the respondents, but the second phase (2008) allocated vacancies only to Combat Arms and Combat Arms Support using a "Command Exit Model," excluding Service Corps officers such as the respondent Lt. Colonels. The respondents challenged this exclusion before the Armed Forces Tribunal, which ruled in their favour and directed the government to create supernumerary posts for them; the Government appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the respondents could not claim a "legitimate expectation" to be included in the second phase of vacancies, since the Government had never represented or conducted itself in a way suggesting Service Corps officers would be treated identically to Combat Arms officers, and army promotion regulations already contemplate officers from different streams being promoted at different times with seniority protected through retrospective effect. The Court also found the Government's policy of prioritizing Combat Arms officers for faster promotion, to make the Army more combat-ready, was not irrational, arbitrary, or unfair, and courts should not second-guess a reasonable policy choice. However, the Court partly allowed the appeals only to the extent of directing the creation of 141 additional Colonel posts for the "Combat Support" stream, to be filled over five years, while otherwise upholding the Government's policy and setting aside the Tribunal's broader order.
Government policy choices on how to allocate promotions or benefits among different employee categories will not be struck down merely because one group feels disadvantaged: a "legitimate expectation" claim requires proof that the government actually created that expectation through its own conduct or representations, not just a sense of unfairness.
