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 respondents' parents, both government schoolteachers, died in harness in 2006. They were offered compassionate appointments as "Nagar Shikshak" (municipal teachers on fixed pay) under the newly-enforced Bihar Municipal Body Elementary Teachers Rules, 2006, which they accepted. A since-withdrawn 2008 government instruction had suggested such posts fell outside the compassionate-appointment committee's jurisdiction and that affected persons should instead get regular government posts; relying on this, the Patna High Court (Single Judge and then Division Bench) directed the State to appoint the respondents to regular government service instead of the Nagar Shikshak posts they had already accepted.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred by relying on the superseded 2008 instruction while ignoring that the respondents' appointments were squarely governed by Rule 10 of the 2006 Rules, under which they had already consented to and accepted their posts; an executive instruction cannot override a statutory rule. The Court relied on its own precedent in Mukesh v. State of Bihar, which had already distinguished the earlier judgment the High Court relied on (Vishwanath Pandey) and held that persons appointed after the 2006 Rules took effect are not entitled to regular government pay scales, unlike those appointed before the Rules existed. Since the respondents were appointed after 1 July 2006, their case fell outside the earlier precedent and within the 2006 Rules' scheme. The Court allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, but granted the respondents liberty to approach the State Government for any suitable relief on the same terms as granted in the Mukesh case.
Once a statutory rule governing compassionate appointments is in force, it displaces any earlier executive instruction on the same subject, and employees who accept appointment under that rule cannot later claim a different, more favourable category of post based on since-withdrawn administrative instructions.
