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 appellant was appointed as a bus driver with the state road transport corporation but was later found "colour blind" during a routine medical check and declared unfit to drive. His request for alternate (non-driving) employment was rejected on the basis of internal circulars, and he was compulsorily retired in 2016. He challenged this relying on a binding 1979 industrial settlement (Clause 14) specifically promising alternate jobs, with pay protection, to drivers found colour blind. A Single Judge of the High Court ruled in his favour, but the Division Bench reversed, relying on precedent holding that colour blindness does not qualify as a "disability" under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Division Bench's judgment. It held that the 1979 settlement's specific clause for colour-blind drivers was never expressly revoked by a later, more general 1986 settlement, and remained a valid, binding, quasi-statutory obligation on the corporation under the Industrial Disputes Act: a specific provision is not overridden by a later general one. Independently of that settlement, the Court also reaffirmed a broader "reasonable accommodation" principle rooted in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution: even where a condition like colour blindness falls outside the technical statutory definition of "disability," an employer must make a genuine, documented effort to find the employee alternate suitable work before retiring them, rather than doing so automatically. The corporation had made no such effort here. The Court ordered the appellant reinstated to a suitable post at his prior pay grade within eight weeks, with 25% back wages and continuity of service.
An employer cannot retire an employee simply because a medical condition disqualifies them from their original role. It must first make a real, documented effort to place them in alternate suitable work, a duty that flows both from any applicable settlement and from the constitutional principle of "reasonable accommodation," even when the condition doesn't technically meet a statute's definition of disability.
