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 moreEmployees of the Customs and Central Excise Department were originally part of a single ministerial cadre. A separate "Data Entry Operator" cadre was carved out of that ministerial cadre in the early 1990s to handle computerization work, and once computerization was complete (around 2002-03), that separate cadre was re-merged into the ministerial cadre as "Tax Assistants/Senior Tax Assistants." This bifurcation and re-merger caused some employees who had moved to the Data Entry Operator cadre to leapfrog in seniority over colleagues who had stayed in the original ministerial cadre, triggering appeals from both sides after the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court gave conflicting rulings on whose seniority should prevail.
The Supreme Court held that the seniority rules governing the merged cadre (Rule 4 of the Tax Assistants Rules, 2003 and Rule 5 of the Senior Tax Assistants Rules, 2003), which fixed seniority based on the pay-scale of the posts at the time of merger, were neither arbitrary nor discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It found no material difference in duties, powers, or qualifications between the two merged streams that would justify treating them differently. The Tribunal's and High Court's orders disturbing this rule-based seniority were set aside, and all the connected appeals were allowed, with directions to the authorities to implement Rules 4 and 5 without further delay.
When cadres are merged, courts will generally uphold a seniority formula based on objective criteria like pay-scale at the time of merger, rather than reopening it on claims of unfairness, as long as the rule was framed with a rational basis and does not single out any group arbitrarily.
