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 moreVijay Shankar Mishra, enrolled in the Army Medical Corps in 1984, was discharged from service in 1998 under Army Rule 13(3) for unsatisfactory conduct after accumulating multiple "red ink entries" (punishment records), just short of the 15 years of service needed to qualify for pension. He was also denied disability pension despite being placed in a low medical category for hypertension. After his writ petitions and an Armed Forces Tribunal application were dismissed, he appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his discharge so close to completing pensionable service was disproportionate and that an Army circular required consideration of mitigating factors before discharging someone for red ink entries.
The Supreme Court relied on its own recent three-judge precedent, Veerendra Kumar Dubey v. Chief of Army Staff (2016) 2 SCC 627, which held that accumulating red ink entries does not make discharge mandatory: it merely makes a soldier eligible for consideration, and the authority must still weigh factors like the nature of the offences, service in hard postings, and long years of nearly-completed pensionable service. The Court found that neither the original discharge order nor the Madhya Pradesh High Court-directed reconsideration had actually applied these factors, so the Armed Forces Tribunal erred in upholding the discharge. It set aside the Tribunal's orders and directed that Mishra be treated as having remained in service until he would have completed qualifying service for pension (though without back-wages), with continuity of service and pension benefits restored and monetary benefits to be released within four months.
A soldier cannot be discharged merely for crossing a numerical threshold of disciplinary "red ink entries": the authority must genuinely weigh the nature of the offences and the individual's length of service and hardship postings, especially when discharge would strip away pension rights the person was about to earn.
