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 Gujarat Public Service Commission advertised posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests and Range Forest Officer with reserved quotas for SEBC/SC/ST categories. The appellant, who applied under the SEBC (reserved) category and had availed an age relaxation available to that category, was selected and placed in the merit list, but argued, relying on an earlier Supreme Court decision (Jitendra Kumar Singh), that since he scored well enough, he should be moved into the general/open category instead of being counted against the reserved quota. A Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court initially agreed with him, but the Division Bench reversed this and held that candidates who avail an age relaxation reserved for their category cannot later be shifted to the general category.
The Supreme Court held that Jitendra Kumar Singh was decided on the specific statutory scheme of Uttar Pradesh and did not apply to Gujarat's own reservation policy framework, which treated age relaxation as a form of relaxed standard tied to reserved-category status. The Court reasoned that a candidate who avails of age relaxation at any stage of the selection process (not just the final stage) has taken the benefit of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution, and cannot then claim to compete as an unreserved/general candidate. Finding no merit in the appellant's arguments, including his attempt to distinguish the preliminary and final examination stages, the Court dismissed the appeal, directing each side to bear its own costs.
A candidate who takes advantage of a reservation-linked concession such as age relaxation during a selection process will be treated as a reserved-category candidate for that selection, and cannot later seek to be counted against general/open category vacancies, even if their marks would otherwise qualify them.
