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 case concerned a long-running dispute over how to determine relative seniority between promotee judicial officers and direct recruits in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service for the 2007 and 2009 selection years, under the Quota-Rota principle in Rules 22 and 26 of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. Various writ petitions were filed by both groups before the Allahabad High Court, which held that promotees could not claim seniority before their actual appointment (since a mandatory suitability test introduced by this Court's earlier rulings had to be cleared first), but also found that the State had failed to properly apply the Quota-Rota rotation principle in fixing seniority. Several connected appeals, special leave petitions and a transfer petition arising from the same underlying dispute were heard together.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that promotees could not be given seniority retroactively from the date a vacancy arose, since a suitability test (mandated by this Court's earlier judgments in the All India Judges' case and upheld in V.K. Srivastava) had to be cleared first, and no promotion or associated seniority could predate that test. On the Quota-Rota question, the Court held that while the rotation principle is normally mandatory, it had to be given a "pragmatic interpretation" here because the determination of vacancies itself had been mired in prolonged litigation, making strict rotation impractical; rigidly applying it would unfairly prejudice the promotees. The Court therefore allowed the direct recruits' appeal, dismissed the promotees' challenge, and disposed of all the connected appeals, SLPs and the transfer petition in line with these findings.
Seniority and quota-rotation rules in service law, though framed as mandatory, must be applied practically where rigid enforcement is rendered impossible by circumstances (such as protracted litigation over vacancy determination): courts will adapt such rules to the real facts rather than apply them mechanically where that would cause serious unfairness.
