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 moreRajasthan advertised teacher recruitment in August 2013 requiring applicants to hold the B.S.T.C. teaching qualification by the application deadline. The respondent, who was still pursuing his B.S.T.C. course at that time, applied under a High Court interim order and later completed the course and scored above the cut-off, but was left out of the final select list for lacking the qualification by the deadline. He challenged this, relying on a proviso to Rule 266(3) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 that allowed candidates who had merely "appeared" for the B.S.T.C./B.Ed. exam to apply, provided they furnished proof of qualification before the result was declared; the High Court's Division Bench accepted this and ruled in his favour.
The core legal question was whether this proviso, originally inserted in 2004, survived a 2011 notification that substituted Rule 266(3) wholesale with new NCTE-based qualifications. The Supreme Court held that, under settled principles of statutory interpretation (citing State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal), a "substitution" of a rule repeals the entire old provision, including any proviso attached to it, and re-enacts a new one in its place; it noted that when the rule-making authority wanted the proviso to survive an earlier 2006 substitution, it expressly re-inserted it by a fresh notification, but did no such thing after the 2011 substitution. Since the proviso had therefore ceased to exist by the time of the 2013 advertisement, the respondent could not rely on it, and the advertisement's requirement that qualifications be held by the application deadline was valid and consistent with the rules. The Court allowed the State's appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, meaning the respondent's exclusion from the select list was upheld.
When a government rule is "substituted" rather than merely "amended," any proviso or exception attached to the old rule disappears unless it is expressly re-enacted, so job applicants cannot assume an old eligibility relaxation still applies after the underlying rule has been replaced; always check the current, post-substitution text of the rule in force on the relevant date.
