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, holding post-graduate (Master's) degrees in subjects like microbiology and food technology, applied for the post of Food Safety Officer under a 2015-16 Jharkhand Public Service Commission recruitment, where the advertised eligibility required "a Degree" in specified science subjects. After clearing the written exam, they were disqualified before interview on the ground that a Master's degree could not be treated as a valid qualifying "degree" for the post. Their writ petition and subsequent intra-court appeal before the Jharkhand High Court were both dismissed, even though the University Grants Commission itself had filed affidavits stating that "degree" should include both Bachelor's and Master's degrees in the relevant subjects.
The Supreme Court held that restricting "degree" to only a Bachelor's degree, while excluding candidates with a Master's or higher degree in the very same qualifying subjects, would be unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional: a more qualified candidate should not be shut out on a technical reading of the rules. It noted that the Central Government itself later amended the Food Safety and Standards Rules in 2022 to expressly clarify that Bachelor's, Master's, or Doctorate degrees in the specified subjects all qualify, confirming the appellants' reading was correct all along. The Court set aside both High Court judgments, held the appellants were qualified, and directed that if vacancies did not exist, the State create supernumerary posts to let the appellants participate in interviews from the stage they were wrongly disqualified, with any resulting appointment effective from the original 2016 select list date (for seniority) but without back wages, and ranked below already-selected candidates to protect their settled seniority.
A "degree" requirement in a job qualification should ordinarily be read to include higher degrees (Master's, Doctorate) in the same subject unless the rules clearly and specifically restrict it to a Bachelor's degree only, excluding better-qualified candidates on a hyper-technical reading is arbitrary and can be struck down.
