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 appellant took part in the 2016 Direct Recruitment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service and ranked 38th in the General Category merit list, one place below the 37 available vacancies. The Allahabad High Court recommended the top 37 candidates to the Governor for appointment, but the Governor's office approved only 36 of them, leaving one post vacant. Instead of recommending the appellant, the next-ranked eligible candidate, for that vacant post, the High Court treated it as unfilled and carried it forward to the next recruitment cycle, relying on Rule 8(2) of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. The appellant's challenge to this was rejected by the Allahabad High Court's Division Bench, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that Rule 8(2) of the Rules, which uses the term "selected direct recruits available for appointment," applied only to a situation where fewer eligible candidates existed than there were vacancies, not to this case, where more than 37 eligible candidates existed but only 37 could be recommended due to the vacancy cap, and one recommended candidate later dropped out. The Court distinguished precedents relied on by the High Court (which involved rules expressly stating there would be "no waiting list" and unfilled posts would be carried forward), noting the U.P. Rules contained no such express bar. Since the appellant was not disqualified or ineligible, and this was not a case of creating an open-ended waiting list, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed that the appellant be appointed and placed immediately below the last-appointed candidate from the same 2016 selection for seniority purposes, with no back-wages for the period before he actually joins.
When a recruitment rule is silent on carrying forward vacancies (unlike rules that expressly say there is "no waiting list"), a vacancy that opens up because a selected candidate's appointment does not materialize should ordinarily go to the next eligible candidate on the same merit list, rather than being left unfilled and pushed to a future recruitment cycle.
