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 moreUnder a 2009 rule, the Jammu & Kashmir government appointed staff such as junior nurses and health workers on an "academic arrangement" basis in government medical colleges. A separate 2010 law allowed regularisation of employees appointed on an ad hoc, contractual, or consolidated basis, but specifically excluded those appointed on the "academic arrangement" basis from this benefit. The appellants, who had worked in this excluded category for years while doing essentially the same work as regularisable employees, challenged this exclusion, but the Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed their claims and upheld the denial of regularisation.
The Supreme Court held that the label attached to an employee's appointment ("academic arrangement" versus "ad hoc" or "contractual") cannot by itself determine whether they are entitled to constitutional protection: what matters is whether the nature of duties, tenure, and conditions of service are actually similar. It found that excluding academic-arrangement employees under Section 3(b) of the 2010 Act had no rational connection to the law's purpose of regularising long-serving irregular employees, making the exclusion an unconstitutional and discriminatory classification under Article 14. The Court declared this exclusion unconstitutional, set aside the High Court's judgments, and directed the State to consider the appellants for regularisation under the 2010 Act's conditions within four weeks, extending the benefit to all similarly placed employees.
A government cannot deny long-serving employees the benefit of a regularisation law simply by giving their appointment a different label. Courts will look past the nomenclature to the actual nature of the work and conditions of service to test for unconstitutional discrimination.
