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 moreDrivers employed in various Tamil Nadu government departments claimed higher "Selection Grade" and "Special Grade" pay scales under a 1998 pay-revision order (G.O. Ms. No. 162), relying on the fact that around 3,000 similarly placed drivers had already been granted these higher scales through earlier, mostly unreasoned, High Court and Supreme Court orders. The Madras High Court, departing from this run of earlier orders, held that the correct entitlement under the governing rules was actually a lower pay bracket.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's ultimate conclusion (though not its reasoning path) that, correctly read, the 1998 pay-revision rules only entitled the drivers to the lower pay brackets (Rs. 4000-6000 and Rs. 4300-6000), not the higher ones claimed. It held that earlier Supreme Court orders merely dismissing special leave petitions without giving reasons are not binding declarations of law and don't attract the "doctrine of merger," so they could not be treated as settling the question. It also held that Article 14 (equality) embodies only "positive equality": a person cannot claim parity with others who were granted a benefit by mistake or error, because that would mean perpetuating an earlier wrong. The appeals were dismissed, while a connected set of appeals by the State regarding Delhi University drivers was partly allowed to bring their pay fixation in line with the same (lower) correct scale.
You cannot invoke the right to equal treatment under Article 14 to claim a benefit that was granted to someone else by mistake or error: equality works to extend lawful treatment, not to spread an earlier wrong. Also, a bare, unreasoned dismissal of a special leave petition by the Supreme Court does not settle the underlying legal question for future cases.
