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 moreAn Air Force officer who had reached the rank of Air Commodore was considered, along with nine others, for promotion to Air Vice Marshal against five vacancies. Although he topped the merit list prepared by the Promotion Board, the applicable policy required the merit list to be rearranged in order of seniority, which placed him third; by the time a vacancy would have become available for him, he had already retired. He challenged this seniority-based rearrangement before the Armed Forces Tribunal, arguing promotion should be purely on merit, but the Tribunal dismissed his case, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court examined a line of its own precedents on promotion policies based on "merit-cum-seniority" versus pure merit, and held that fixing quotas or sequencing for promotion among qualified candidates is a policy prerogative of the employer that does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as long as it isn't arbitrary. Distinguishing the officer's reliance on a differently-structured policy for a different armed forces promotion, the Court found no illegality in the Air Force's February 2008 promotion policy that rearranged the merit list by seniority, and upheld the Tribunal's refusal to interfere with it. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, confirming that the officer was not entitled to promotion to Air Vice Marshal purely on the basis of having topped the Promotion Board's merit list.
Courts generally defer to an employer's (including the armed forces') internal promotion policy choices, such as sequencing promotions by seniority among those already found meritorious, unless the policy itself is shown to be arbitrary or unconstitutional; simply being more meritorious does not override a validly framed seniority-based sequencing rule.
