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 Security Staff Union of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) sought a government Reference back in 1979 asking for pay-scale parity between its lower security ranks (Assistant Security Officer, Security Havaldar, Security Guard) and equivalent ranks in the Delhi Police. An Industrial Tribunal awarded that parity in 1985, which DTC challenged. A High Court Single Judge upheld the award, but the Division Bench set it aside, and the Union appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that parity with Delhi Police pay-scales had historically existed only for the higher ranks of Deputy Security Officer and Security Officer, not for the lower ranks in question, and that there was no evidence this difference was ever a deliberate, conscious policy of equal treatment that the lower ranks could claim as a matter of right. The Court reaffirmed that fixing pay-scales is a technical, policy-laden exercise best left to Pay Commissions rather than courts or tribunals, especially once a Pay Commission is already examining the issue. It also noted the pay-scales had since been revised multiple times through successive Pay Commissions without the Union raising any objection, and that implementing the old 1985 award now would create serious anomalies. Finding no reason to interfere with the Division Bench's view, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Courts and tribunals are generally reluctant to override Pay Commission-based pay-scale decisions on an "equal pay for equal work" claim unless there is clear evidence that the disputed parity was a deliberate, considered policy: mere historical coincidence in pay-scales between different posts or organisations is not enough to create an enforceable right to permanent parity.
