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 moreUnder Orissa's Veterinary Technical Service recruitment rules, the educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Livestock Inspector was "matriculation," later raised by a 1997 amendment to "+2 Science" or equivalent. A group of candidates who had been trained in 1994-97 under the TRYSEM (Training Rural Youth for Self Employment) scheme, when qualification was still matriculation, sought appointment years later against vacancies that had arisen before the 1997 amendment. The High Court held that since the vacancies arose before 1997, the older (lower) qualification should apply, and ruled in the candidates' favour. The State of Orissa appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that for direct recruitment (as opposed to promotion), the qualification to be applied is the one in force at the time of actual recruitment/selection, not the qualification in force when the vacancy first arose. It found the High Court had mistakenly treated the 1984 Rules and their 1997 amendment as two separate, independent sets of rules, when in fact they were a single set of rules later amended. Relying on its earlier ruling in Union of India v. Yogendra Singh, the Court reasoned that no candidate has a vested right to be appointed against an old vacancy using an educational qualification that has since been superseded; only promotees (not direct recruits) can claim selection under rules as they stood when the vacancy arose, based on legitimate expectation. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the State's appeal was allowed, though the Court left it open to the respondents to separately petition the Government for relaxation of the qualification given their training and prior engagement as Livestock Inspectors.
In government direct-recruitment (as opposed to promotion) cases, candidates must meet the educational/eligibility criteria that are in force at the time of actual selection, not the criteria that existed when the vacancy first opened up, even if that means years of delay work against them.
