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, an Army officer, was wrongly court-martialled and later had that punishment annulled by the Central Government, which directed that he receive "all consequential benefits." He argued this entitled him to be promoted to the rank of Brigadier like his batchmates, but a Selection Board assessed him on merit against other officers and found him unfit for even the lower promotion to Colonel by selection. The Armed Forces Tribunal sided with the officer, calling the Selection Board's assessment "perverse" and ordering a fresh board plus costs of Rs. 5 lakh against the government.
The Supreme Court held that "consequential benefits" from quashing the court-martial meant quantifiable losses like pay and allowances, not a guaranteed promotion that is otherwise decided purely on comparative merit through a Selection Board. Courts cannot sit in appeal over a Selection Board's merit-based assessment unless there is illegality, procedural irregularity, or bad faith: none of which was shown here. The Board had compared the officer against other candidates on six objective criteria and found him lower on several of them, a judgment call within its expertise. The Tribunal's order directing promotion and awarding costs was therefore set aside, and both of the Union's appeals were allowed.
Even where a wrongful disciplinary punishment is later undone and "consequential benefits" are granted, this does not create an automatic right to a merit-based promotion: courts will not second-guess a properly constituted Selection Board's comparative assessment absent proof of illegality or bad faith.
