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 Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors Association sought parity with Public Prosecutors on retirement age, arguing their duties were similar but Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed before 31 March 2013 retired at 56 while Public Prosecutors could serve to 60, and even judicial officers in Kerala retired at 60. Both the High Court's Single Judge and Division Bench had rejected this claim, holding that the two posts had fundamentally different modes of appointment and service conditions. The Association appealed to the Supreme Court, also offering, as an alternative, to forgo pension for the extra years if allowed to serve until 60.
The Supreme Court held that similarity in day-to-day duties alone cannot justify treating two posts as equal for service-condition purposes, because Assistant Public Prosecutors are regular government employees selected competitively by the Public Service Commission with full service benefits, whereas Public Prosecutors are appointed for fixed three-year terms from a panel of advocates, are terminable without reason, and receive no government service benefits. It similarly rejected comparison with judicial officers, since their appointment process and conditions are also distinct. The Court also declined to direct the government to accept the Association's offer to forgo pension in exchange for a later retirement age, holding this was a policy matter for the government to decide and that granting it unilaterally would create anomalies for other employees who retire at 56. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs, while leaving it open for the government to consider the Association's proposal on its own if it wished.
Courts will not grant parity in service conditions (like retirement age) between two posts merely because their day-to-day functions look similar: differences in appointment process, tenure, and employment status matter, and such policy choices are generally left to the government rather than imposed by judicial order.
