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 moreUnder Maharashtra's recruitment rules, 75% of Forester posts are filled by seniority-cum-fitness among Forest Guards, and the remaining 25% through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) open to all Forest Guards with five years' service. A 2013 amendment additionally required candidates to hold a graduate degree to even sit the LDCE. The Forest Guards' union challenged this graduation requirement as discriminatory against non-graduate Forest Guards who were otherwise eligible.
The Court held that since the LDCE was meant to give all Forest Guards (irrespective of educational qualification) a chance to compete for the 25% quota, and no separate quota existed for graduates alone, imposing a graduation requirement unreasonably split one eligible class (Forest Guards) into a sub-class (graduates vs. non-graduates), violating the equal-opportunity guarantees of Articles 14 and 16. The Court accordingly declared the graduation requirement in Rule 7(2) of the Recruitment Rules unconstitutional, while clarifying that promotions already made would not be disturbed; future LDCE rounds were to be held afresh, open to all eligible Forest Guards. The appeal was allowed.
A government cannot add an additional eligibility bar (like a specific educational qualification) to a promotional exam meant for an entire class of employees unless there is a genuine, separately-quota-backed basis for the distinction, doing so without such a basis amounts to unconstitutional discrimination within the same class.
