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 moreShirish Pandharinath Patil was issued a caste certificate in 1984 certifying him as belonging to the "Tokre Koli" Scheduled Tribe, on the strength of which he was appointed as a Junior Engineer with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in 1994 and later promoted. When his caste claim was referred for verification in 2008, old family records showed his ancestors recorded simply as "Koli"/"Hindu Koli", and after prolonged proceedings the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee invalidated his certificate in 2020; the Bombay High Court upheld that decision. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the appellant had already retired in 2025 after more than three decades of service, with an affidavit confirming no family member had derived any benefit from the certificate.
The Supreme Court found no error in the Scrutiny Committee's and High Court's conclusion that the appellant's caste claim was rightly invalidated, given the pre-constitutional family records showing "Koli" rather than "Tokre Koli," and upheld that part of the decision without interference. However, invoking its special power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do "complete justice," and following its own recent precedents (including Surekha Baljorsingh Thakur), the Court protected the appellant's more than three decades of actual service for the limited purpose of computing and releasing his retiral and pensionary benefits, to be processed within six months. It expressly clarified that this relief was not a validation of his caste claim and that neither he nor his family could claim any future benefit based on the invalidated certificate.
Even when a Scheduled Caste/Tribe certificate obtained decades ago is ultimately found invalid, the Supreme Court can use its Article 142 powers to protect a long-serving, retired employee's pension and retiral dues on equitable grounds, but such relief is strictly limited and does not revive or legitimize the underlying invalid certificate for any other purpose.
