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 moreIn an earlier 2019 judgment (Union of India v. Tarsem Singh), the Supreme Court had held that landowners whose land was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) between 1997 and 2015 were entitled to "solatium" and "interest" - benefits that a special provision of the highways law had wrongly denied them, treating them unequally compared to other landowners. The NHAI later filed an application asking the Court to clarify that this 2019 ruling should apply only prospectively (from 2019 onwards), not to older, already-acquired land, citing a potential financial burden of roughly Rs. 92-100 crores.
The Supreme Court rejected NHAI's request, holding that making the 2019 ruling prospective-only would defeat its entire purpose, which was to correct the unequal treatment of landowners whose land was acquired under the flawed provision. The Court reasoned that the financial burden argument could not override the constitutional right to equal treatment and fair compensation, especially since the highway costs are ultimately passed on to road users rather than borne personally by government officials or contractors. It also held that granting solatium and interest does not amount to unlawfully "reopening" final acquisition decisions, since it only adds compensatory benefits without disturbing the acquisition itself; the miscellaneous application was dismissed and the connected appeals were allowed in line with the 2019 ruling.
Once the Supreme Court strikes down a law as creating unequal treatment between similarly situated citizens, the government cannot later ask the Court to limit that ruling's benefit only to future cases just because correcting the past would be administratively or financially inconvenient.
