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 law graduate with 90% locomotor disability (left shoulder disarticulation) who had practised as an advocate since 2015, applied for the post of Assistant District Attorney (ADA) in Himachal Pradesh under the disability quota. He cleared the written exam and interview and was recommended for appointment, but the State withheld his appointment letter on the ground that his 90% disability exceeded the advertisement's prescribed ceiling of 60% disability for the physically-handicapped category. His writ petition challenging this exclusion was dismissed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, even though the High Court itself flagged that the State had no clear basis for fixing the 60% ceiling.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and held that denying the appellant appointment despite his success in the selection process was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16 as well as the RPwD Act, 2016. The Court found that the State had fixed the 60% disability ceiling without any objective evaluation of the job's actual functional requirements and without consulting any expert medical committee, as required under the statutory scheme: the State's own affidavits revealed confusion and an absence of a rational basis for the cutoff. The Court noted the job of an ADA primarily requires legal acumen, mental alacrity and analytical ability to conduct litigation, teach law, and advise the government: functions for which a disability in the arm/shoulder, whatever its percentage, is not a genuine impediment. The Court ordered the State to appoint the appellant within two weeks, directed that his appointment relate back to 19 September 2019 (the date of the original appointment notification) with all notional benefits from that date, and imposed Rs. 5 lakh costs on the State for the unjust denial and prolonged litigation it caused.
A government cannot impose disability percentage ceilings in recruitment without a documented, expert-backed rational basis tied to the actual functional demands of the job: an arbitrary cutoff that ignores an already-successful candidate's demonstrated competence is unconstitutional and can result in mandatory appointment with back-dated benefits and costs against the State.
