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 moreIn the early 1980s, around 6,000 Class III and Class IV employees were appointed in Bihar's Health Department under a Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme against only 2,250 sanctioned posts, many by an officer who had no authority to appoint, and some using forged documents. Earlier Supreme Court rulings had already declared these appointments void. After a State-appointed committee re-examined individual cases and classified many as involving forged letters, forged certificates, or appointment by an incompetent authority, fresh termination orders were issued. Employees challenged these terminations, producing conflicting High Court rulings in different rounds of litigation that led to this consolidated batch of more than 40 appeals, including the one concerning Devendra Sharma.
The Supreme Court held that none of the affected employees' appointments were merely "irregular" (which can sometimes be regularised): they were "illegal" and void from inception, since there was no sanctioned post, no advertisement, no competitive selection, and in many cases forged credentials. Applying its earlier Constitution Bench ruling in Uma Devi and related precedents, the Court held that long years of service (even 25 years) cannot cure a fundamentally illegal appointment, and no right to salary, pension, or regularisation can ever flow from it. The Court allowed the State's appeals against the High Court orders that had favoured the employees, including the order covering Devendra Sharma's matter, which arose from the State's 2011 appeal, while dismissing the separate appeals filed by employees against a different 2014 High Court order that had already gone against them.
A government job obtained through a fundamentally flawed process, no sanctioned post, no fair selection, or forged documents, cannot be "regularised" later no matter how many years the person has worked, because an illegal appointment is void from the start and cannot ripen into a valid one with the passage of time.
