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 respondents were appointed as Junior Machine Operators/Key Punch Operators in the Government of India in 1987 on temporary status, later regularized in 1989. When their posts were abolished in 1995, they were shifted to the post of "Computor" but told they would continue drawing only their old, lower pay scale. A 1989 Government Office Memorandum had, however, re-designated posts like theirs as "Data Entry Operator Grade A/B" with revised, higher pay scales effective from 1986. The respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking back pay at the higher, re-designated scale from their original date of appointment; the Tribunal and then the Delhi High Court both ruled in their favour, and the government appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court relied on its own recent precedent (Secretary, Department of Personnel v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao, decided weeks earlier) interpreting the same 1989 Office Memorandum rationalizing Electronic Data Processing cadre pay scales. It held that the respondents' original posts were indeed covered by that Memorandum and were correctly re-designated as Data Entry Operator Grade "A," entitling them to the revised pay scale of Rs.1150-1500 from their actual dates of initial appointment in 1987, not from some later date. The Court found no error in the High Court's and Tribunal's conclusions and declined to interfere, while clarifying that any claim to a further promotional pay scale (via the Computor/ad hoc promotion route) would depend on there being an actual order of promotion on record, which was absent here. The appeal filed by the Union of India was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the respondents' entitlement to back pay from their original appointment dates was upheld.
When a government pay-rationalization policy re-designates a post with a revised scale, employees holding posts covered by that policy are entitled to the revised pay from their original date of appointment, even if administrative action implementing it comes years later, and a later transfer to another post does not extinguish that accrued entitlement.
