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 was appointed as a Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor by the respondent University in 1987, at a time when its governing statute offered employees two retirement schemes: a default General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme, or an optional Contributory Provident Fund scheme that employees had to affirmatively choose. In 2008 the University invited employees to opt into the Contributory Provident Fund within one month, but the appellant did not submit any option. When the University later published its list of employees under the pension scheme, his name was missing, and his writ petition and subsequent writ appeal before the Patna High Court seeking inclusion were both dismissed on the ground that he had failed to exercise his option.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misread the University's own statute and office order. Under Chapter 16.1 of the University Statute, pension was the default entitlement for all employees unless they specifically opted for the Contributory Provident Fund; the 2008 office order likewise stated that employees who did not exercise any option "shall be included in the Pension Scheme." Since it was undisputed that the appellant never opted for the Contributory Provident Fund, non-exercise of that option automatically placed him in the pension scheme, not outside it. The Court also noted that the same High Court had granted identical relief to similarly placed employees in earlier cases, making the appellant's dismissal inconsistent. It set aside the High Court's order and directed that he be given retiral benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme within four months, subject to adjustment for any Contributory Provident Fund benefits he may have already received.
When a service rule or scheme sets a "default" entitlement that applies unless an employee affirmatively opts out, silence or non-response should be read in favour of the default benefit, not against the employee: an institution cannot penalise an employee for not exercising an option that was never mandatory for them to exercise.
