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 teacher confirmed in a fully government-aided minority school since 2008, applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) under a 25% quota reserved for experienced Government Primary School teachers in Jharkhand. He was found eligible and, after litigation over delay in issuing his appointment letter, was ultimately appointed as TGT in October 2019. Almost a year later, his services were abruptly terminated in September 2020, and the department also sought to recover the salary he had already been paid. His challenge to this termination was dismissed by both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court.
The Supreme Court found the case turned on peculiar facts. The appellant had been found eligible by the District Education Establishment Committee itself before being appointed, and the termination order came without adequately addressing this. The Court set aside the termination order and the associated salary-recovery order, directed the appellant's forthwith reinstatement with continuity of service for all purposes including terminal benefits, but denied him back wages for the period he remained out of employment. It also directed compliance by 1 October 2025 and expressly clarified that this order was passed on the peculiar facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent.
Even where the Supreme Court grants relief against an unfair termination, it can calibrate the remedy, reinstatement and continuity of service without necessarily awarding back wages, based on the specific facts, and such fact-specific relief is not meant to set a general precedent for other cases.
