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 case concerned recruitment to the post of Technician Grade-II in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited. A batch of writ petitions had challenged the selection process (including allegations that some selected candidates held computer certificates from unrecognised private institutions), and a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed those challenges in 2017. A Division Bench of the High Court later reversed that decision in 2019 and set aside the selections. The appellants, candidates who had been selected and whose selections were thus undone, appealed to the Supreme Court in three connected appeals, with Mukul Kumar Tyagi's case treated as the lead matter.
The Supreme Court examined the eligibility criteria, the validity of computer certificates relied upon by candidates, and objections that not all affected candidates had been made parties to the original writ petitions. It held that the Single Judge's original 2017 judgment (upholding the selections) could not be faulted merely because every one of the roughly 2,211 selected candidates was not individually impleaded, since the challenge was to a systemic, allegedly illegal process and some candidates were represented in a representative capacity. It also declined to give specific directions about filling later vacancies arising from non-joining or resignation, leaving those operational matters to the Corporation. The Court allowed all three appeals, set aside the Division Bench's 2019 judgment, and restored the Single Judge's 2017 judgment upholding the original selections.
In large-scale public recruitment disputes affecting thousands of candidates, courts will not insist that every beneficiary of a selection list be individually made a party to a case challenging that list, especially where some are already represented and the challenge concerns the fairness of the overall process.
