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 Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education advertised a post of Computer Hardware Engineer requiring a specific technical degree with at least five years' experience in a "computer manufacturing/maintenance company of repute." Himakshi was selected and appointed, but a rival unsuccessful candidate, Rahul Verma, challenged the selection. The High Court's Division Bench found that neither candidate actually met the prescribed essential qualifications at the time of recruitment and set aside Himakshi's appointment, prompting cross-appeals: one by Himakshi contesting her removal, and one by Rahul seeking his own appointment instead.
The Supreme Court examined the actual work experience of all candidates involved and found that none of them (including the selected candidate, the unsuccessful candidate, and even the waitlisted candidate) possessed the specific type of experience required by the recruitment rules, showing the entire selection process had not been scrutinized with due rigour. The Court held that Himakshi's appointment could not be sustained in law since she did not meet the essential eligibility criteria. However, it also rejected Rahul's plea to be appointed instead, holding that a court cannot direct appointment of a candidate merely because another candidate's selection was invalid, unless that candidate's own entitlement is clear and rule-compliant: here it was not. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the appointment but declined to order a fresh selection process, leaving it open to the Board to hold a fresh recruitment if it wished. Both appeals were dismissed.
In public employment, an appointment made without genuine compliance with prescribed eligibility criteria cannot be sustained even after a long period of service, but the remedy for a flawed selection process is not automatic appointment of a rival candidate. Courts will only direct appointment where that candidate's own legal entitlement is clear and unambiguous.
