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 moreBir Singh's appeal against the Delhi Jal Board was the lead matter used to finally resolve a long-pending constitutional question referred by an earlier two-judge Bench in State of Uttaranchal v. Sandeep Kumar Singh: whether a person recognised as a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) in one State can claim that same reserved status for public employment in a different State or Union Territory, in particular the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi. A Full Bench of the Delhi High Court had followed a three-judge Supreme Court decision (S. Pushpa) holding that SC/ST status travels with a migrant into a Union Territory, a view in apparent tension with earlier Constitution Bench rulings (Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao and the Action Committee case) confining reservation benefits to the specific State/Union Territory for which the caste/tribe was notified. A five-judge Bench was constituted to resolve this conflict, with Bir Singh's dispute with the Delhi Jal Board, and several other similarly placed Delhi Jal Board service appeals, serving as the live cases through which the question was finally answered.
The majority (Gogoi, Ramana, Shantanagoudar and Nazeer, JJ.) held that, as a general rule, SC/ST status notified for one State or Union Territory under Articles 341/342 does not automatically extend to another State/Union Territory when a person migrates: reservation under Article 16(4) is tied to the specific geographical area for which the caste/tribe was notified. However, the majority carved out that, specifically for the NCT of Delhi, the pan-India reservation rule actually in force there is consistent with the constitutional scheme governing Union and State/Union Territory services, and therefore valid. Justice Banumathi agreed with the general principle but dissented on this Delhi-specific finding, holding that reservation in Union Territory services (other than UPSC-recruited posts) should likewise be confined to SC/STs notified specifically for that Union Territory. Having answered the reference this way, the majority held it unnecessary to remit this and the other tagged Delhi appeals to a regular bench and disposed of them directly "in terms of the present order," while a related appeal concerning the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands was separately listed before an appropriate bench for fresh consideration on its own facts.
Whether an SC/ST certificate obtained in one State can be used to claim reserved-category employment benefits in another State or Union Territory depends on the specific Presidential Order notifying that caste/tribe for the area in question. As a rule it does not travel automatically, though Delhi was recognised as having a valid pan-India reservation policy for its Union Territory services as an exception to that general rule.
