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 U.P. Public Service Commission had recommended candidates for 178 posts of Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools in batches between 2010 and 2012, after which 7 selected candidates failed to join and their names were cancelled. When the Education Department asked the Commission in 2013 to send 7 more names from the wait-list, the Commission refused, saying the one-year validity period for operating the wait-list (as fixed by government orders) had already expired. The affected candidate went to the Allahabad High Court, which ruled in his favour and directed the Commission to send more names.
The Supreme Court held that the one-year wait-list validity period must be counted from the date of the first substantial recommendation (12 August 2010, covering 156 of the 178 posts), not from a later, smaller recommendation made in 2012. Since the request for 7 more names came nearly three years after the initial recommendation, it fell outside the one-year window and could lawfully be refused. The Court distinguished an earlier precedent relied upon by the candidate, finding it inapplicable on facts, and set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the Commission's appeal.
When a government recruiting body operates a wait-list, the clock for its validity runs from the first major recommendation list, not from subsequent minor additions: candidates and departments should track timelines from that anchor date.
