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 respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on probation at the appellant school in 1995, but approval of her appointment by the Director of School Education, West Bengal was delayed for years, prompting her to file a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing approval. After the High Court directed the authorities to decide on approval, the school issued her a show-cause notice and suspended her for involving a government officer in litigation against the school's wishes; later, after further friction, she was forcibly removed from the premises with police help and terminated by a letter in February 2001 without any departmental enquiry. Her writ challenge to the termination was initially dismissed by a Single Judge as not maintainable (since the school was a private institution), but the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reversed this, ordering her reinstatement with full back wages, which the school then challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the writ petition was maintainable even against a private, grant-aided school because such institutions performing public functions (like education) and subject to statutory approval requirements for appointment/termination fall within the scope of Article 226, relying on precedents including Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab and Raj Kumar v. Director of Education. The Court found that since prior government approval was legally required before terminating the teacher's services (just as it was for her appointment) and no such approval was obtained, and no departmental enquiry was conducted before the stigmatic dismissal, the termination was arbitrary, illegal, and void. It distinguished the school's cited precedents (involving purely unaided institutions with no approval requirement) as inapplicable to a case involving a grant-aided school with a statutory approval safeguard. The Civil Appeal was dismissed, upholding reinstatement with back wages given the five years of service rendered and the absence of any fair enquiry.
Even private schools that receive government grants-in-aid are bound by statutory safeguards, such as requiring government approval before terminating a teacher, and dismissing an employee without following that approval process or holding a fair enquiry can be struck down as arbitrary, regardless of the institution's private character.
