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 1999, Manipur's Electricity Department conducted a selection process for the post of Assistant Lineman, but before results could be declared, the State imposed a complete ban on direct recruitment due to a financial crisis and later cancelled the pending selections by a 2001 policy decision. Years later, after the department was reorganised into successor power corporations and fresh posts (Junior System Assistant) were advertised in 2016, some of the 1999 selectees approached the Manipur High Court, which directed the State to declare the old results and adjust the selected candidates into the newly advertised posts.
The Supreme Court held that mere selection or inclusion in a panel does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, relying on its earlier decision in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India. It found the State's 2001 decision cancelling the 1999 selections was taken bona fide to address a genuine financial crisis, and the respondents had never challenged that cancellation. Since the 1999 selection process stood validly cancelled, the respondents had no surviving right to appointment, let alone to be slotted into differently advertised posts created in 2016. The High Court's direction was accordingly held unsustainable, the appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.
Being selected or placed on a merit list does not by itself create a vested right to a government job, especially where the recruitment process was validly and bona fide cancelled by the government for genuine reasons, and that cancellation was never itself challenged.
