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 police constables in Uttar Pradesh, recruited in 2005-06 and terminated from service in September 2007. A Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court held their termination illegal, a decision upheld by the Division Bench, and the constables were reinstated in May 2009. A later dispute arose over whether they were owed full backwages (salary) for the entire gap period between termination and reinstatement; when the High Court declined, in contempt proceedings, to order full backwages, the constables appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted the State of U.P. had, on its own, decided to take all the terminated constables back into service without further inquiry into the allegations against them (rather than weeding out any "tainted" candidates as it had been permitted to do), and had acted within three months of the final High Court order: conduct the Court treated as the State already having shown the appellants "sufficient grace." The Court therefore revisited its own earlier tentative view (from an August 2017 order) that some backwages might be due, and instead held that full backwages were not warranted. As a final resolution, the Court directed that each constable who had pursued the case up to August 2017 be paid Rs. 35,000 as litigation expenses in full and final settlement (with 18% interest if not paid by 20 December 2017), and clarified that the constables would be treated as being in "continuous service" for all purposes except Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits. The Court expressly limited this resolution to the specific facts of this case, so it would not become a precedent for other similarly-reinstated employees.
In long-running service disputes, courts can and do craft case-specific equitable settlements (such as a fixed litigation-cost payment instead of full backwages) rather than mechanically applying a general rule, and such settlements are often expressly confined to the particular litigants before the court, so they should not be assumed to automatically extend to others in a similar situation.
