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 moreCandidates who were unsuccessful in the UPSC Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010 moved the Delhi High Court seeking disclosure, under the Right to Information Act, of their raw and scaled marks, subject-wise cut-offs, the scaling/moderation methodology, model answers and the results of all candidates. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court directed UPSC to furnish this information, and UPSC (along with some connected RTI appeals against other public authorities) appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to balance the right to information against other legitimate public interests recognised under the RTI Act, including the integrity of the examination system, the confidentiality needed to protect examiners, and the efficient use of limited administrative resources, relying on its earlier rulings in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and the UPSC evaluation-process concerns documented in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar v. UPSC. It held that information such as raw marks in a competitive exam like the Civil Services Examination cannot be ordered disclosed mechanically, and since the High Court's direction had been issued without weighing these competing considerations, the impugned orders were set aside and the underlying writ petitions were dismissed, while leaving the respondents free to make out a proper case before an appropriate forum if they could. The connected civil appeal and the tagged special leave petitions were disposed of in the same terms.
The right to information is not absolute: courts must weigh it against other recognised public interests such as administrative efficiency and the integrity of sensitive processes like examination evaluation, and a blanket direction for disclosure of raw exam marks and evaluation data cannot be issued without that balancing exercise.
