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, Khilendra Singh, belonging to the "Jaat" caste/community, was appointed in January 2008 to a post of Subject Matter Specialist (Crop Protection & Crop Psychology) at Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Sansthan, Almora, against a vacancy reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), on the strength of an OBC certificate issued by a local Tehsildar. He was later issued a show-cause notice and his appointment was terminated in November 2010 on the ground that "Jaat" was not included in the Central Government's OBC list applicable to his case. His writ petition challenging the termination was dismissed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's specific reasoning (that the Uttarakhand state OBC list, rather than the Central List, governed the appointment), but it nonetheless agreed with the High Court's bottom-line conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to the OBC-reserved post. The Court explained that the Central List of OBCs for Uttar Pradesh, prepared in 1993 (and which applied to Uttarakhand before the state's own list was finalised), did not include the "Jaat" caste at the time of the 2007 selection/advertisement; "Jaat" was only added to the Central OBC list for Uttarakhand and several other states in 2014, long after the appellant's 2008 appointment and 2010 termination. Since the appellant did not belong to a recognised OBC category under the list actually in force at the relevant time, his appointment against an OBC-reserved post could not stand, and the appeal was dismissed (while affirming the final result for different legal reasons than the High Court used).
Eligibility for a reserved-category government post depends on whether your caste was included in the official Central OBC list in force at the time of selection: a later addition of your caste to that list (even years before your case is finally decided) does not retroactively validate an appointment made when the list did not yet cover you.
