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 moreThree lecturers at a degree college in Allahabad had been appointed only as part-time, fixed-term teachers in 1988-89 (after missing the deadline for a proper ad hoc advertisement), and their engagement ended in April 1990. Over nearly two decades of litigation, the lecturers repeatedly sought to be declared "ad hoc" lecturers (a status with stronger regularization rights) and to be paid and regularized on that basis, with the Allahabad High Court and various UP Government orders going back and forth on the question. The College and a group of regularly-selected rival lecturers (who would be displaced if the original three were regularized) ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had proceeded on a factually mistaken basis: the three lecturers were never appointed pursuant to the ad hoc advertisement of January 1988, but were instead engaged independently as part-time lecturers for a fixed three-month term, which ended in April 1990. The relevant statutory provisions on regularization of ad hoc teachers (Sections 16 and 31-C of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act) apply only to teachers appointed on an ad hoc basis, not to part-time lecturers, and there was no evidence the lecturers had worked beyond April 1990. The Court therefore allowed the appeals, holding the lecturers had no right to be regularized, and set aside the order regularizing their services.
The specific legal category under which someone is initially appointed (here, "part-time" versus "ad hoc") can determine their entire future employment rights: a a person cannot later claim benefits reserved for a different appointment category merely because they believe they deserve equivalent treatment; the facts of exactly how and under what process someone was hired matter decisively in service-law disputes.
