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 moreA Selection Committee met in 2004 to consider officers of the Tamil Nadu cadre for promotion to the IAS against three vacancies. The first respondent was assessed as "Good" but, due to a lower overall relative grading and the statutory cap on the size of the Select List, was not included, while two other officers with higher grading were selected and later appointed. The Madras High Court subsequently set aside the Selection Committee's decision and directed a fresh Selection Committee meeting to review the 2004 promotions and consider promoting the first respondent retrospectively. The UPSC and Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court against this High Court direction.
The Supreme Court held that courts have a very limited scope of judicial review over decisions of expert Selection Committees, and cannot sit in appeal over their assessment of relative merit absent bias, mala fides, or arbitrariness. Examining the record, it found no arbitrariness in either the Selection Committee's decision or its process: the first respondent was excluded only because of his lower grading and the statutory limit on the number of selectable vacancies, not any flaw in assessment. It therefore held the High Court was wrong to direct a review of the 2004 promotions. The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's judgment, while leaving a separate, later challenge to a 2011 government order to be decided independently on its own merits.
Courts will not second-guess the comparative merit assessments of expert bodies like Selection Committees unless the decision-making process itself is shown to be biased, mala fide, or arbitrary: mere disagreement with the outcome is not a ground for judicial interference.
