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 morePhysically handicapped candidates belonging to the General Category were originally allowed only 4 attempts at the Civil Services Examination, while physically handicapped OBC candidates were already allowed 7 attempts (equal to other OBC candidates) and SC/ST candidates had unlimited attempts. In 2007 the Central Government raised the General Category physically-handicapped quota from 4 to 7 attempts to bring it level with the OBC physically-handicapped quota. A physically handicapped OBC candidate (M. Selvakumar, who had already used all 7 of his permitted attempts) argued that since the General Category's cap had been raised, his own OBC cap should proportionately rise as well (e.g., to 10), and the Madras High Court and later the Delhi High Court (in a similar case) agreed and allowed his 9th attempt.
The Supreme Court held that the 2007 amendment was a deliberate, considered policy decision of the Government aimed specifically at equalising the General Category's attempts with what OBC candidates already enjoyed, not a general entitlement for every category to keep "topping up" each other's attempt limits. It reasoned that policy decisions on how reservations and relaxations are structured fall within the State's discretion under Articles 15 and 16 and are not ordinarily open to judicial interference unless shown to be unreasonable, and found nothing unreasonable or discriminatory in leaving the already-equal OBC attempt-count unchanged while raising only the General Category's lower count to match it. It accordingly set aside both the Madras High Court and Delhi High Court judgments and dismissed the underlying writ petitions, allowing all three connected appeals.
When the government revises one category's entitlement to bring it level with another category that already enjoys a benefit, that is not automatically unfair to the category whose benefit stayed the same: courts will generally respect such calibrated policy choices unless they are shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
