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 moreMinisterial staff of the Madhya Pradesh Police (Head Clerks, Accountants, Record Keepers, etc.), who had been given police ranks and titles in 1967 alongside Uniform Grant/Maintenance Allowances, claimed they were entitled to the same higher pay-scales as the Executive (operational) police force. This claim was rejected by the Madhya Pradesh High Court across multiple linked appeals (Civil Appeal Nos.9888-9899 of 2018 and several tagged batches), which held that recruitment, qualifications, and duties for the two cadres differed, so parity could not be claimed, though it also found certain pay-recovery demands against the employees to be unjustified.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's reasoning, holding that merely receiving police ranks and allowances under the 1967 Memorandum did not entitle Ministerial staff to the Executive force's pay-scale, since the Memorandum itself expressly preserved their existing (lower) emoluments, and the 1983 Pay Revision Rules specifically excluded the Ministerial cadre's ad hoc increase from being used for scale-fixation. The Court also rejected reliance on two earlier Tribunal rulings (Tripathi and Duraphe) as those cases had only concerned a modest ad hoc increment, not scale parity, and an erroneous pay-table reference in one of them had already been corrected on review. Applying the "equal pay for equal work" principle, the Court held that because recruitment mode, qualifications, training, and duties differed between the two cadres, the principle did not apply even though both groups sometimes performed overlapping work. All the tagged appeals, including this one, were dismissed, while the High Court's separate finding against certain pay-recovery demands was left undisturbed.
Holding a similar-sounding rank or title, or receiving some of the same allowances as another cadre, does not by itself create a right to equal pay: the "equal pay for equal work" principle requires genuinely matching recruitment criteria, qualifications, and duties, not just superficial similarities.
