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 respondent, a Supervisor in Tamil Nadu's Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, was charge-sheeted in 2012 and, following an inquiry report of 2013, was punished in 2017 with stoppage of two increments (without cumulative effect): a punishment he did not challenge and which attained finality. In 2020, the department issued a fresh show-cause notice under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules seeking to enhance this to removal from service; he replied asking that this be dropped, but was removed from service on 4 January 2021, well after he had already reached superannuation age in May 2020. The High Court found the revision-and-enhancement process grossly delayed and ruled in the respondent's favour, prompting the State's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Rule 36 mandates a reasonable opportunity of hearing and a decision within a defined limitation period, and here the show-cause notice of 27 February 2020 was followed by a final order only on 4 January 2021, well beyond the six-month statutory limitation for such revision. The Court noted the State had "dragged its feet at every instance," prejudicing the respondent, and that there was no pandemic-related excuse available for the pre-2020 delay in initiating the revision process. It also found it unfair that the respondent was effectively punished twice for the same misconduct, having already served the original stoppage-of-increment punishment (with his increments restored in 2019) before the harsher removal order was even proposed. The Court dismissed the State's Special Leave Petition, holding the revised punishment arbitrary, unreasonable, and unconscionable, and directed that the respondent be restored to service status with all retirement benefits and dues.
A government employer must act within the statutory time limits when revising or enhancing a disciplinary punishment; unexplained, prolonged delay in the process, especially where the employee has already served the original punishment, makes the revised punishment arbitrary and unenforceable, and the State is held to the same standard of fairness expected of a "model employer."
