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 Medical Corps officer who rose to the rank of Lieutenant General, was repeatedly denied empanelment for promotion to the rank of Lt. General by Special Promotion/Review Boards, leading him to file multiple statutory complaints and applications before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) alleging he had been unfairly marked down. The AFT ultimately ruled in his favour, found he had been wrongly given lower marks, and when the post of Director General Medical Services (Army) (DGMS (Army)) fell vacant, directed the Union of India to appoint him to that post directly rather than appointing a rival officer, Lt. Gen. Sanjiv Chopra, who had instead been appointed on the basis of his experience at Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence (IHQ of MoD). The Union of India appealed the AFT's judgment to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed with the AFT's conclusion that the appointment of Lt. Gen. Sanjiv Chopra to the post of DGMS (Army) was not based on a fair and objective application of the inter-se seniority and suitability criteria, noting that IHQ experience was not a mandatory prerequisite for the post and that the respondent's equivalent administrative experience in Southern Command had been unfairly discounted, and accordingly quashed that appointment. However, the Court held that the AFT's further direction that the respondent be straightaway appointed to the post was improper, since the Court itself had not fully endorsed the AFT's seniority-based reasoning; instead, it set aside that specific direction and remitted the actual appointment decision to the Raksha Mantri (Defence Minister) for a fresh, dispassionate and objective decision, directing this be done within about a week given the post's prolonged vacancy.
Even where a court or tribunal finds that a particular appointment process was flawed and quashes it, that does not automatically entitle the aggrieved candidate to be appointed in the rival's place: the appropriate remedy is often to send the appointment decision back to the competent authority to be made afresh, fairly and objectively, rather than for the court to effectively make the appointment itself.
