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 Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) issued a show-cause notice to the appellants on 18 December 2020 alleging unauthorised construction, and merely pasted it on the property rather than making genuine efforts at personal service. A demolition order followed on 8 January 2021, similarly "served" only by affixing, and a further communication was sent by registered post on 1 March 2021, received by the appellants on Saturday 6 March 2021. Within 24 hours of that service, on a Sunday, the PDA demolished the appellants' residential structures using bulldozers, without giving them the 15 days needed to file a statutory appeal.
The Supreme Court held the demolition entirely illegal, finding that the PDA never made genuine, repeated attempts at personal service as required under Section 43 of the 1973 Act before resorting to affixing a notice, and that the appellants were denied the mandatory opportunity to appeal under Section 27(2) before their homes were bulldozed. The Court held that the right to shelter is part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and can only be taken away by due process, and criticised the PDA's conduct as "bulldozer justice" carried out with insensitivity and in violation of the rule of law. It set aside the High Court's order, directed the PDA to strictly follow the Supreme Court's earlier general directions on demolitions (In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures), and ordered the PDA to pay Rs. 10 lakh in costs to the appellants in each case, while leaving them free to pursue further proceedings to establish their property rights and claim compensation.
A demolition of any residential structure must be preceded by proper notice (genuine, repeated attempts at personal service, not just pasting a notice on the door) and the owner must be given the full statutory time (at least 15 days) to appeal before any demolition; skipping these safeguards violates the constitutional right to shelter and can expose the authority to heavy costs.
