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 moreAfter 12 years without any direct recruitment to Professor posts in Uttar Pradesh's government medical colleges, the state advertised 47 vacancies in 2015 without reserving any posts for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Classes, and raised the maximum recruitment age from 45 to 65 years. Candidates challenged both the lack of reservation and the age increase in the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed their petition. They then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that reservation under the Uttar Pradesh Reservation Act must be calculated department/specialty-wise (as a single unit) rather than across the entire cadre of Professors, and since each department had fewer than five posts available for direct recruitment, the reservation rules governing a minimum cadre size were correctly held inapplicable. On the age limit, the Court found that Medical Council of India regulations (which permitted up to 70 years) override the State's own Service Rules (which capped it at 45), so the government's order raising the limit to 65 to address a chronic shortage of qualified teaching staff was valid and did not need to be separately challenged as it only supplemented, not replaced, the rules. The Court also noted the unchallenged government order from 2015 could not now be questioned indirectly through this appeal. Both appeals were dismissed, and the State was directed to expedite filling the posts.
Reservation and eligibility requirements set by statute can operate differently depending on how a "unit" (such as a department versus an entire cadre) is defined in the governing rules, and specialized regulatory body rules (like the Medical Council of India's) can override conflicting state service rules on matters within that body's domain.
