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 moreUnder a Uttar Pradesh scheme (part of the centrally sponsored Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan/Samagra Shiksha Scheme) implementing the right to free education, part-time contractual instructors were appointed in Upper Primary Schools in 2013 at a fixed honorarium of Rs. 7,000/month, later renewed year after year despite the fixed 11-month contract term. Although the state's Project Approval Board (PAB) approved raising the honorarium to Rs. 17,000/month for 2017-18, the executive authorities never actually paid this amount and instead paid lower or even reverted to the original Rs. 7,000/month. The instructors (and, separately, the State) appealed a Allahabad High Court ruling that had granted the Rs. 17,000 rate only for the single year 2017-18.
The Supreme Court held that once the PAB, the sole competent authority under the scheme, approved the Rs. 17,000/month honorarium for 2017-18, no other authority could lawfully reduce or withhold it, and paying only Rs. 7,000/month amounted to "begar" (forced labour) violating Article 23 of the Constitution. It found that instructors continuing for over a decade under repeatedly renewed contracts were, in substance, no longer "contractual" and were entitled to periodic revision of honorarium (at least once every three years). The Court rejected the State's argument that non-release of the Central Government's 60% funding share excused non-payment, applying the "pay and recover" principle. The State must pay instructors first and separately recover the Centre's contribution. It directed payment of Rs. 17,000/month with effect from 2017-18, actual payment to start from 01.04.2026, with arrears cleared within six months.
Once a competent statutory authority formally approves a wage or honorarium increase, government departments cannot unilaterally scale it back or withhold it citing internal funding disputes between the Centre and State: the employee's entitlement is not held hostage to inter-governmental fund-sharing disagreements.
