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 Kerala Panchayat Department had promoted 97 Upper Division Clerks to the post of Executive Officer, Grade-I on an ad hoc basis, but these promotions exceeded the eligible quota. When the Government tried to regularise the promotions retrospectively, the Kerala Administrative Tribunal struck this down as impermissible, and the Kerala High Court affirmed that ruling. The affected officials then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal and High Court that the 97 promotions could not be regularised since they were plainly in excess of the sanctioned quota, and that a proper seniority list required resolving the fate of these ad hoc promotions. However, taking into account the long passage of time and the fact that only two of the original 61 affected incumbents were still in service, the Court directed that none of them be reverted while implementing the judgment, and that those who had already retired should not have their pensions disturbed. Subject to these protective directions, the appeals were dismissed, with liberty for any individual with a separate grievance to pursue it in appropriate proceedings.
Promotions made in excess of a sanctioned quota cannot be regularised merely by government order, but courts may temper the practical consequences of correcting such an error, for instance, by protecting long-serving employees from reversion or pension loss, rather than enforcing a harsh, mechanical undoing of the irregularity.
