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 appellant, ranked No. 3 on a select list for District Programme Officer under the reserved Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh category, sought appointment after the person originally appointed to that reserved vacancy (one Gurpreet Singh) resigned a year into the job. The State rejected his claim, arguing the reserved "point" was consumed once an appointment had been made against it, and that the vacancy would need to be re-advertised; this view was upheld by both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appellant relied on a 1996 government instruction stating that a reserved-category point vacated by resignation is not treated as "consumed" and must instead be filled from the existing select list in order of seniority.
The Supreme Court held that the State's "consumed point" argument could not be accepted because it would defeat the entire purpose of the 1996 instruction, which left the department no discretion in the matter: a vacancy arising before the select list expired had to be filled from that very list. Since the vacancy had arisen in 2014, before the next selection began in 2016, and the State itself confirmed the Balmiki/Majbhi Sikh reserved slot remained unfilled and available, the Court directed the State to make the appointment from the 2012 merit list within two months, noting that if the person ranked above the appellant (No. 2) was not interested, it would naturally go to the appellant. It clarified that the appointee would get seniority only from the date of actual appointment, and made no order as to costs.
A reserved-category vacancy that falls vacant through resignation before a select list expires is not treated as permanently "used up": authorities must fill it from the existing merit list rather than re-advertising, and employees have a legitimate expectation to be considered in order of their rank on that list.
