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 U.P. Public Service Commission conducted the 2004 "Backlog" and "P.C.S." recruitment examinations, which included compulsory subjects (General Studies, Hindi, English Essay) and optional subjects chosen from 33 options. Candidates challenged the results before the Allahabad High Court, which quashed them, holding that the Commission's use of a statistical "scaling" method (rather than "moderation") to adjust marks, including for the compulsory subjects, was arbitrary, relying on the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2007).
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that scaling (appropriate only to compare marks across different optional subjects) should not have been applied to the compulsory subjects, which were common to all candidates and should instead have used moderation to correct for examiner variability, so the Commission's evaluation method was indeed arbitrary. However, the Court declined to let the High Court's remedy stand: ordering the results to be redeclared afresh would have displaced candidates who had already been selected and had been working in their posts for roughly ten years under an interim Supreme Court order, through no fault of their own. Exercising its power to mould relief to do complete justice, and noting the examinations had been conducted under a method then-approved by an earlier Supreme Court ruling (Subhash Chandra Dixit), the Court made its finding of illegality prospective only, upholding that the scaling method was wrong in principle, but refusing to disturb the existing appointments.
Courts can declare a government process (such as an exam evaluation method) legally flawed while still protecting people who already relied on its outcome in good faith for years: a finding that something was done wrongly does not automatically mean everyone affected must be undone.
