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 moreThis was a long-running seniority dispute between "direct recruit" Assistant Engineers (the appellants, originally appointed on an ad hoc basis in 1987 and regularised only in 2001) and "promotee" Assistant Engineers in Uttar Pradesh's Development Authorities service. A 2007 seniority list placed the promotees above the direct appointees, and the direct appointees challenged it, arguing the promotees' appointments were invalid because the mandatory requirement of consulting the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) before confirming their promotions had never been followed. The State had tried to justify skipping consultation by relying on a rule amendment that, on closer reading, did not actually cover the post of Assistant Engineer.
The Supreme Court held that consultation with the UPPSC was indeed mandatory for promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer, and the High Court had wrongly relied on a rule amendment that did not apply to this post to excuse the lack of consultation. However, the Court held that this lapse amounted only to a curable "irregularity," not an "illegality" that would void the promotees' appointments outright, especially since the appellants' own appointments had likewise bypassed the normal Commission-based process. The Court directed the State Government to refer the matter to the UPPSC for consultation within two months; the existing seniority list would continue to stand in the promotees' favour unless the UPPSC gave a negative opinion on a particular promotee, in which case that person alone would lose their place in the seniority list. The appeals were disposed of on these terms, with parties bearing their own costs.
Skipping a mandatory procedural safeguard, like consultation with a Public Service Commission before confirming promotions, does not automatically invalidate years of service: courts can order the missing step to be completed after the fact ("ex post facto") rather than unwinding settled appointments, especially when the party raising the objection has an equally irregular service history of its own.
