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 large group of Class III/IV employees had been appointed to posts in Bihar's health department directly by local Civil Surgeons, without following the state's prescribed open, competitive recruitment procedure. When the State discovered widespread irregularities (many appointments were found to rest on forged documents or no appointment order at all), it set up a committee that classified the appointments as forged/illegal, merely irregular, or genuinely entitled to regularisation, and terminated the services of those found illegally appointed. Some terminated employees won reinstatement or regularisation orders from the Patna High Court (which the State then appealed), while others had their claims rejected by the High Court (and they in turn appealed): the Supreme Court heard this whole batch together since they raised a common question.
The Supreme Court applied the Constitution Bench ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), which distinguishes "irregular" appointments (of qualified persons to sanctioned posts, just without open competition), which may be regularised as a one-time measure after 10+ years of service, from "illegal" appointments (based on forged documents, unsanctioned posts, or no genuine appointment process at all), which can never be regularised or sanctified merely through the passage of time. On the facts, the State Committee had found that the employees in this batch could not establish the genuineness of their appointments, meaning their appointments were void ab initio and illegal, not merely irregular. The Court held there was no reason to disagree with that finding, and that because their appointments were void from the start, no disciplinary inquiry under Article 311 was even required before terminating them. It therefore dismissed the appeals filed by the employees and allowed the appeals filed by the State of Bihar, directing dismissal of the underlying writ petitions.
Long years of service alone do not entitle a government employee to regularisation or protection against termination if the original appointment was never valid in the first place (e.g., forged documents or no genuine selection process): the one-time regularisation benefit under Umadevi applies only to irregular appointments of genuinely qualified people to real, sanctioned posts, not to illegal ones.
