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 core question in this group of appeals (Civil Appeal No. 7362 of 2013, heard together with four other connected civil appeals) was whether the tribe listed as "Kulis" in Schedule II, Part XII, Item No. 42 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, covers members of the "Kuli" community in Odisha. The State of Orissa argued that "Kulis" and "Kuli" were distinct communities and that courts could not expand the Presidential Order/Parliamentary list to cover a community not expressly named in it, challenging a High Court ruling that had allowed the respondent, a member of the Kuli community, to claim Scheduled Tribe status.
The Supreme Court reviewed decades of historical and administrative records, including census data, departmental correspondence, and the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes' reports, and found no evidence that any separate community called "Kulis" ever existed in Odisha; the only community on record was "Kuli," sometimes described in the plural as "Kulis" in both English and administrative usage (the Hindi version of the 1976 Act itself used "Kuli," not "Kulis"). While reaffirming that courts cannot add to, alter, or modify the notified list of Scheduled Castes/Tribes, the Court held that reading "Kulis" as excluding the only actual community with that name would effectively delete a tribe from the Scheduled Tribes list altogether, defeating Parliament's evident intent. It therefore held that "Kulis" in the English version of the Order must be read as the plural of "Kuli," entitling members of the Kuli community to Scheduled Tribe status, and dismissed the State's appeals (along with an intervention application) and the connected matters.
When a statutory list uses a term that appears to be a mere grammatical plural or variant spelling of the only actual community by that name in a region, courts will interpret the entry to match historical and administrative reality rather than allow a technical reading to erase an intended community's Scheduled Tribe benefits altogether.
