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 had worked as Lecturers, Librarians and Physical Training Instructors in Rajasthan government colleges, were appointed between 1950-1976, and retired between 1991-2004, all of them having been placed in the "Selection Scale" pay grade on or before 1.1.1986 and having completed three years in that scale before 1.1.2006. The State of Rajasthan denied them the corresponding pensionary benefit tied to that revised Selection Scale, relying on a restrictive reading of its own circular/memorandum, prompting the respondents to approach the courts; the High Court ruled in the respondents' favour, leading to this batch of appeals by the State.
The Supreme Court held that pension is a vested right flowing from the applicable rules, not a matter of government discretion, reaffirming the long-settled principle from Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar that a government servant within the rules is entitled to claim pension regardless of any order of the authority. It found that the Rajasthan circular, despite some difference in wording from a comparable Haryana Pension Rules provision the High Court had relied on, led to the same substantive entitlement, and rejected the State's argument that extending the benefit would impose too heavy a financial burden, noting only a small number of affected retirees remained alive. The Court dismissed the entire batch of appeals, directed that the pensionary benefit be extended to the respondents within three months, failing which the amount would carry 9% annual interest, and specifically criticized the State Government for pursuing avoidable litigation to deny legitimate dues to retired employees.
Pension is a legal right that accrues automatically to an employee who satisfies the eligibility conditions under the applicable rules: it cannot be withheld at the government's discretion, and a State cannot resist legitimate pension dues merely by citing financial burden when the eligible class is small.
