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 appellants worked as casual daily-wage workers (as sweepers and a cook) with the Income Tax Department in Gwalior since the 1990s, and sought regularization of their service after the Department began outsourcing similar work. The Central Administrative Tribunal and later the Madhya Pradesh High Court both rejected their claim, holding they did not meet the ten-year continuous-service threshold set out in the Supreme Court's Umadevi (3) judgment. The appellants argued they were on the same 2005 list of daily-wage workers as employees in two earlier Supreme Court cases (Ravi Verma and Raman Kumar) whose services had already been ordered regularized.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding the appellants' names appeared on the same official 2005/2008 lists of daily-wage workers as the employees who won regularization in the Ravi Verma and Raman Kumar cases, making them similarly situated and entitled to identical treatment on grounds of non-discrimination. The Court relied on its recent Jaggo judgment, which clarified that Umadevi (3) was meant to stop illegal "backdoor" appointments, not to deny fair treatment to employees whose appointments were merely "irregular" but who performed long, continuous, and essential duties. It held that outsourcing the very same work the appellants had been doing showed the work was perennial in nature, not temporary. The Tribunal and High Court erred by rigidly applying Umadevi (3) without considering these distinguishing facts. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed regularization of the appellants' services effective 01.07.2006, with consequential benefits to be released within three months.
Long-serving casual or daily-wage government employees performing essential, recurring duties cannot be denied regularization merely by labelling their appointment "temporary," especially when similarly placed co-workers have already secured regularization through the courts: such selective treatment amounts to discrimination.
