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 batch of private tour operators (PTOs) who organise Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages were disqualified from getting a quota of Hajj 2016 pilgrim seats, even though they had previously qualified in 2015 but simply missed out in a lottery draw. Under the Court-approved Hajj policy, such operators were supposed to be exempt from certain documentation conditions when reapplying: yet the government's rejection letters cited failure to meet exactly those exempted conditions as the reason for disqualification.
The Supreme Court held that a government order must be judged by the reasons actually stated in it and cannot later be justified by different reasons offered in court, relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner. Since the stated grounds for rejection were conditions from which the petitioners had been expressly exempted, the rejection was patently arbitrary and violated Article 14. Because the 2016 and 2017 Hajj seasons had already passed, reinstating the petitioners' quota was no longer possible, so the Court instead awarded public-law compensation of Rs. 5 lakh to each petitioner for the loss of business, along with costs, and allowed the government to recover these amounts from the officials responsible for the unsustainable orders.
When a government body's own written order gives a reason for rejecting someone that doesn't hold up, the courts will not let it be rescued by new reasons offered later, and where restoring the original benefit is no longer possible, courts can award monetary compensation against the state for arbitrary official action, even to be recovered from the responsible officials personally.
