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 moreThis was a batch of 49 connected appeals filed by the Union of India against ex-servicemen who, after completing service in the Regular Army, were re-employed in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) and later sought pension for their second spell of service in the DSC. In each case the individual's DSC service fell short of the normal 15-year qualifying period by up to one year, and the question was whether they could get that shortfall "condoned" (excused) under the Pension Regulations so they could still draw a DSC pension. The Union of India argued that special DSC-specific pension provisions excluded the general condonation benefit available to regular Army personnel.
The Supreme Court held that DSC personnel who chose not to count their earlier Army service (i.e., whose DSC service is treated as a fresh, independent engagement) are entitled to the same shortfall condonation of up to one year available to Regular Army personnel under Paragraph 125 of the 1961 Pension Regulations and Paragraph 44 of the 2008 Pension Regulations. The Court rejected the Government's argument that a separate DSC-specific provision (Paragraph 175) excludes condonation, calling the distinction "hairsplitting," and held that executive letters cannot override or amend validly framed statutory Pension Regulations. It also reaffirmed that pension is a vested, deferred component of past service and not a bounty that can be withheld at the government's discretion. All the Union of India's appeals were accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.
A pension right earned under statutory regulations cannot be curtailed by internal government letters or circulars that are inconsistent with those regulations; ex-servicemen re-employed in the DSC are entitled to condonation of a service shortfall of up to one year, just like regular Army personnel, when claiming pension for their second spell of service.
