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 moreRetired employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenged a government order that increased dearness allowance (DA) for serving employees by 14% but increased dearness relief (DR) for pensioners by only 11%, even though both were meant to offset the same inflation. A Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissed their challenge, holding serving employees and pensioners were not the same class, but a Division Bench reversed this, ruling that the differential rates were discriminatory. The State and KSRTC appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court applied the classic two-part test for valid classification under Article 14, an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the object of the law, and held that since DA and DR serve the identical purpose of cushioning the effects of inflation, and inflation affects serving and retired employees equally, there was no rational basis for giving pensioners a lower rate of increase. The Court clarified that the dispute was not about whether pensioners were entitled to DR at all (which was undisputed) but about the differential rate applied once that entitlement existed, and such an unequal rate of increase was arbitrary and discriminatory. It agreed with the High Court's Division Bench that the government order was unconstitutional to the extent it fixed a lower enhancement rate for DR than for DA. The appeals by the State and KSRTC were dismissed.
When a government benefit like inflation-linked allowances serves the same purpose for two groups (serving employees and pensioners), the State cannot arbitrarily fix a lower rate of increase for one group without a rational justification, doing so violates the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14.
