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 were daily-rated workers in Group 'D' posts in the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department who sought regularisation of their jobs and the minimum pay scale given to regular employees doing the same work. The Allahabad High Court's Single Judge and then a Division Bench rejected the minimum-pay-scale claim, relying on Supreme Court precedents holding that daily wagers are not entitled to regular pay scales. By the time of the Supreme Court hearing, the appellants' counsel narrowed the dispute to just one question: whether they were entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale, not regularisation itself.
The Supreme Court held that its own more recent and comprehensive ruling in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) had settled that temporary/daily-wage employees performing the same duties as regular employees are entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale, as an application of "equal pay for equal work" and basic human dignity. Since the High Court's view to the contrary rested on older precedents that stood superseded by Jagjit Singh, the Court set aside the High Court's judgments and allowed the appeals, directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay the appellants the minimum of the pay scale applicable to regular employees in equivalent posts, effective 1 December 2018. The Court expressly did not decide the separate question of regularisation of their service, nor the State's objection that some appellants were not actually working on sanctioned Group 'D' posts.
A worker doing the same job as a permanently appointed employee is entitled to at least the minimum of that post's regular pay scale under the "equal pay for equal work" principle, even while their claim to permanent regularisation of the job itself remains a separate and undecided question.
