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 moreA group of candidates in Odisha had undergone a government-sponsored "Gardener" training programme in the late 1990s, after which the State decided not to appoint them, eventually abolishing the post of Gardener altogether. The Odisha Administrative Tribunal and the High Court repeatedly ruled in the trainees' favour, directing the State to appoint them against vacant Gardener posts, partly by analogy to a handful of other trainees who had earlier been appointed (though irregularly) and reinstated. The State and the Director of Horticulture appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that completing training never guaranteed a job and that the earlier irregular appointments could not be used to justify extending the same benefit to hundreds more.
The Supreme Court held that the training circular itself explicitly stated there was no guarantee of employment after training, and that the selection of 362 candidates for training in the first place had not followed any transparent or approved procedure. It held that completing a training course cannot by itself create a right to a public post: public employment must be filled through a proper, open selection process giving all eligible candidates a fair opportunity to compete. The Court also rejected the argument that the trainees were entitled to parity with the six earlier irregularly-appointed persons, holding that there is no right to equal treatment in an illegality ("no parity in the illegality"). It therefore set aside the Tribunal's and High Court's orders and dismissed the trainees' applications.
Undergoing government training or an internship does not by itself create a legal right to be appointed to a government job: appointment to a public post must still go through a fair, transparent, and properly authorised selection process, and a citizen cannot claim equal treatment based on someone else's earlier irregular or illegal appointment.
