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 moreTwo teachers were appointed as Assistant Teachers at a junior high school in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh in March 2012, before either of them had cleared the mandatory Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). One appellant cleared TET later in 2011, and the other in 2014. A 2017 amendment to the Right to Education Act gave teachers who were already in position as of 31 March 2015 until 31 March 2019 to acquire the TET qualification. Despite both appellants having passed TET well before that 2019 deadline, the education authority terminated their services in 2018 solely because they lacked TET at the time of their original appointment. The High Court (both single judge and Division Bench) upheld the termination.
The Supreme Court held that the lower courts and the education authority had misapplied the law: the 2017 amendment explicitly gave already-serving, unqualified teachers until 31 March 2019 to obtain TET, and both appellants had done so well within that window (by 2014). Since there was no other stated ground for finding them unsuitable, their termination for lack of TET at appointment, when they had since met the extended deadline, was unlawful. The Court quashed the High Court's judgments and the termination order, and directed that the teachers be reinstated with continuity of service and all consequential benefits (except back-wages for the period they were out of service).
When a law is later amended to give existing employees a grace period to meet a new qualification requirement, an employer cannot terminate someone for not having met that requirement at the time of original appointment if the employee in fact qualified within the extended grace period.
