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, a Scheduled Tribe candidate who was working as a Grade-II teacher in Rajasthan's Education Department, resigned before her interview and was selected as a Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate under the Rajasthan Judicial Service. After a complaint was filed against her, the High Court's Full Court issued a show-cause notice alleging she had fraudulently pursued overlapping degree courses while employed, concealed her government employment in an interview checklist, and did not obtain a No Objection Certificate before appearing for the judicial service exam. Without giving her an effective hearing in the inquiry, the Full Court discharged her from service as a probationer, and the High Court dismissed her writ petition against that discharge.
The Supreme Court found that the alleged degree-related misconduct occurred while she was still a teacher, not a judicial officer, and that by the date of her interview she had already resigned from government service, so there was, at most, a minor omission in not mentioning her past employment, not a material irregularity. The Court held the discharge was effectively a stigmatic, punitive termination dressed up as a routine probation discharge, issued without a fair inquiry or opportunity to be heard, violating natural justice and Article 311. It also emphasized the broader value of diversity and women's participation in the judiciary. The show-cause notice and discharge order were quashed.
An employer cannot dismiss a probationer for "misconduct" using an inquiry that denies a fair hearing. If the termination is really punitive in substance (even if worded as termination simpliciter), it must meet the constitutional safeguards of natural justice, and minor, non-material disclosure lapses should not be treated as career-ending offences.
