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 moreIn 1995 the appellant cleared a competitive exam for Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools in undivided Uttar Pradesh and had opted for a "hill region" posting, but his appointment was delayed for years over a documentation technicality, and he was finally appointed only in 2011: long after Uttarakhand had been carved out as a separate state in 2000. He then repeatedly asked the UP government to reallocate him to Uttarakhand's cadre, citing his original hill-area preference, his residence there, and his son's cognitive disability, but got no response. The High Court dismissed his plea, reasoning that once he was allotted to UP service, there was no question of transfer to Uttarakhand.
The Supreme Court held the High Court's reasoning was wrong because it conflated a mere "transfer" (change of posting within the same cadre) with a "change of cadre" (a structural reallocation between successor states), which are legally distinct. Applying the Department of Personnel and Training's own cadre-allocation criteria (option, domicile, and an express exception for employees with family members suffering mental illness) the Court found the appellant qualified for reallocation to Uttarakhand on multiple independent grounds. It set aside the High Court's judgment, directed the UP Chief Secretary to reallocate him to Uttarakhand with seniority and benefits protected, and separately awarded him Rs. 1,00,000 in costs against the State for nearly three decades of bureaucratic delay and apathy.
A "transfer" and a "change of cadre" are legally different concepts, and government cadre-reallocation decisions must actually apply the stated allocation criteria (option, domicile, documented hardship exceptions) rather than being brushed aside; courts can and will penalize a state in costs for prolonged, unexplained administrative delay in service matters.
