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 moreFollowing a 1999 advertisement by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for Group-II posts, selections were made for executive and non-executive posts over several rounds between 2000 and 2002. In March 2002, the State Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 124, changing the formula for how many posts in a selection list had to go to "local candidates" versus a combined merit list. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed that this new G.O. be applied to re-cast the already-prepared merit list, and the High Court upheld this direction, which would have disturbed appointments already made to several meritorious candidates (including the appellants).
The Supreme Court held that G.O.Ms. No. 124 of 2002 could only operate prospectively, not retrospectively, because the Presidential Order of 1975 (under which the State Government's reservation powers derive) did not authorise the State Government to issue such orders with retrospective effect, and there was no express or implied language in G.O.Ms. No. 124 itself indicating retrospective application. The Court further held that a procedural rule governing reservation in selection cannot be applied retrospectively once the selection process has already begun. Consequently, G.O.Ms. No. 124 could not be used to disturb the selection process begun under the 1999 advertisement, and the Tribunal had erred in directing a re-cast of the merit list. The Tribunal's order and the High Court's judgment upholding it were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with a direction that the remaining vacant posts be filled under the rules as they stood in 1999.
A government order changing selection/reservation procedure generally applies only going forward, not to selection processes already underway: authorities cannot retroactively reshuffle a merit list and disturb appointments already made unless the law clearly says so.
