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 appellants, railway employees, challenged how the Railways were implementing the Supreme Court's seniority/reservation-roster rulings in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995) and Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995), which fixed 10.02.1995 as the date from which a "post-based roster" (used to determine seniority between reserved and general-category promotees) was to apply. The Railways, however, told the Court that it only started applying the post-based roster from 16.11.2005, based on internal clarificatory letters issued in 2005-2006. The appellants argued this delay wrongly affected their seniority and promotion to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer.
The Supreme Court held that the Railways' stand, applying the post-based roster only from 16.11.2005, could not be justified, because the Court's earlier ruling in Virpal Singh Chauhan had already directed the Railways to follow the R.K. Sabharwal principles from 10.02.1995. The Court therefore directed that the appellants' promotion claims be re-examined applying the roster from 10.02.1995, while protecting promotions already granted to other employees (making the correction largely notional/seniority-restoring rather than disturbing existing postings). One appellant, already promoted, was to get only notional seniority and pay fixation; the other was to get seniority benefits if found otherwise eligible. The exercise was ordered to be completed within one month.
When the Supreme Court fixes an effective date for a service-law rule (like a seniority roster), a government department cannot unilaterally push that date forward through its own internal circulars: employees affected by such a delay can approach the courts to have the original effective date enforced, even years later.
