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 Corporal in the Indian Air Force, overstayed sanctioned casual leave by about one and a half years without informing his unit, citing ill health and family problems. He was tried by a District Court Martial, found guilty of overstaying leave without sufficient cause, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service. The Armed Forces Tribunal upheld the finding of guilt but set aside the dismissal, ordering his reinstatement and treating the intervening period as non-qualifying service, reasoning that the punishment was disproportionate given mitigating circumstances. The Union of India appealed against the reinstatement.
The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own view on the appropriate punishment, since courts/tribunals should interfere with a disciplinary punishment only where it is shown to be grossly or shockingly disproportionate, which was not the case here, given the respondent's year-and-a-half-long unexplained absence. The Tribunal's order of reinstatement was accordingly set aside. However, taking a sympathetic view at the respondent's request (and with the Union's counsel not objecting, since there was no financial implication for the department), the Court exercised its power to do complete justice and modified the punishment from "dismissal from service" to the lesser "discharge from service simpliciter," so the respondent would not be permanently disqualified from other employment. The appeal was thus allowed in part.
Service tribunals cannot casually substitute their own view of a "proportionate" punishment for a disciplinary authority's decision unless the punishment is shown to be grossly disproportionate to the proven misconduct; at the same time, the Supreme Court can still use its power to do complete justice to soften the practical consequences of a punishment (here, converting a stigmatic "dismissal" into a neutral "discharge") without reinstating the person.
