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 moreTrade unions representing casual workers employed by the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) on a Char Dham Yatra road project in Uttarakhand sought regularisation of these long-serving casual labourers as government employees. A single judge of the Uttarakhand High Court allowed their writ petition directing regularisation, and the Division Bench not only upheld this but went further, itself framing a detailed welfare scheme, covering pay scale, housing, warm clothing, creches, medical treatment and more, and directing the Union of India to implement it. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the case was squarely governed by its own earlier decision in Union of India vs. Vartak Labour Union, involving nearly identical facts (casual BRO workers elsewhere seeking regularisation), where it had ruled that long service alone does not entitle casual workers to regularisation if their original appointment did not follow due process, and that courts should at most direct the government to consider framing a scheme, not draft one themselves. The Court held the High Court had exceeded its proper role under Article 226 by itself devising and imposing a detailed welfare scheme, which is the Executive's prerogative, not the judiciary's. Noting that the Union of India had in fact already framed its own welfare scheme for such workers, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the original writ petition.
Courts exercising writ jurisdiction can direct the government to consider framing welfare measures for long-serving casual workers, but cannot draft and impose a specific scheme themselves: that remains the government's own policy-making prerogative.
