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 moreIn a 2011 Karnataka Public Service Commission recruitment for Gazetted Probationer posts, the respondent, an ex-serviceman, was selected and appointed to one post (Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) but not to a higher-preference post (Assistant Commissioner, Karnataka Administrative Service) that had gone to another candidate, Sri Aiyappa M.A. When Aiyappa never completed his medical examination or police verification and never joined, the respondent claimed that post should pass to him as the next-ranked candidate. The State rejected this, saying the 1997 Recruitment Rules had no provision for an additional or waiting list, and the vacancy would have to be filled through a fresh recruitment; the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal agreed, but the Karnataka High Court later reversed the Tribunal and directed the State to consider the respondent for the post.
The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal and restored the Tribunal's decision, holding that the 1997 Rules established a scheme of recruitment against notified vacancies through service-wise lists sized exactly to the number of vacancies, with no reserve, waiting, or additional list contemplated. Citing Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India and related precedent, the Court reiterated that inclusion in a select list never creates an indefeasible right to appointment, and a candidate ranked below cannot claim automatic substitution into another candidate's unfilled post absent an express rule permitting it. The Court also noted the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022, which gave finality to the 2011 selection list and barred proceedings to reopen it. It held the High Court had wrongly conflated the factual existence of an unfilled post with a legal entitlement to have it filled from the same list, and that Rule 11(3) squarely barred the respondent's claim.
Being on a merit/select list for a government recruitment does not, by itself, create a legal right to appointment, especially to a different post than the one offered, unless the specific recruitment rules expressly allow a vacancy to be filled by moving down the same list; absent such a rule, an unfilled vacancy typically must go to a fresh recruitment process instead.
