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 moreVikesh Kumar Gupta and another candidate had applied for the post of Senior Teacher (Grade II) in Social Science through a 2016 Rajasthan Public Service Commission advertisement. After an initial answer key and merit list, their names were dropped when a revised ("2nd") answer key was issued following reconsideration of some disputed exam questions by an expert committee. Multiple rounds of litigation followed in the Rajasthan High Court over which disputed questions should be referred for expert review and whether the High Court itself could re-assess the correctness of exam answers. Several connected appeals from different stages of this litigation were heard together by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that courts should not themselves assess the correctness of examination answers: that is a matter for subject experts, and judicial review of such academic matters is very limited. It found the High Court Division Bench had erred by itself examining disputed questions and concluding that five answers were wrong, instead of leaving that determination to the Expert Committee. However, the Court declined to set aside the High Court's judgment or disturb appointments already made, since some candidates affected had already been appointed and the selection process had progressed significantly. The Court upheld the already-prepared Select List and Wait List based on the second answer key, directed that the stalled selection process be completed within 8 weeks, and left it open to the authorities to fill existing vacancies from the wait list on merit. All the appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Courts generally will not substitute their own judgment for that of subject-matter experts on the correctness of exam questions/answers, and once a recruitment process has substantially progressed with appointments made, courts are reluctant to unsettle it even if some procedural irregularity is found.
