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 appellants were appointed as teachers at Khalsa Girls High School in Calcutta, a school established for the Punjabi-speaking Sikh community, but the District Inspector of Schools refused to approve their appointments on the ground that they had not been recommended by the statutory School Service Commission, as required for non-minority aided institutions. A single judge of the Calcutta High Court held the school was a linguistic minority institution entitled to appoint its own teachers, but a Division Bench reversed this, holding the school had never formally claimed minority status and so was bound by the general appointment rules. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, two judges (T.S. Thakur, J. and R. Banumathi, J.) disagreed with each other on the outcome, so the case was referred to this three-judge bench to resolve the conflict.
The three-judge bench agreed with the view earlier taken by Thakur, J.: that a genuine linguistic or religious minority institution retains its constitutional right under Article 30 to appoint teachers of its choice, and this right is not lost simply because the institution sought a "special constitution"/grant arrangement with the State Education Board, since the State's regulatory power over eligibility conditions does not extend to taking away the core right of appointment itself. The Court also rejected the State's final plea to refer the matter further to a Constitution Bench, distinguishing the cited precedent as dealing with different facts (majority/minority status under a different Punjab statute). Consequently, the Single Judge's ruling (recognising the school's minority status and upholding the appellants' appointments) was restored, and the Division Bench's contrary ruling was set aside. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
A linguistic or religious minority institution's constitutional right to appoint its own teachers survives even if it also participates in State grant-in-aid or "special constitution" schemes: the State can regulate qualifications and standards, but cannot use such schemes to force the institution to surrender its core right to choose its own staff.
