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 appellant, a physics lecturer, applied in 2002 for the post of Principal of a UP school, a post requiring ten years' teaching experience, but he had only 9 years and 3 months because part of that period was spent on study leave abroad in Czechoslovakia. He was nonetheless selected and eventually appointed as Principal in 2008 after earlier litigation delays, but his appointment was cancelled the same year once a complaint revealed he lacked the required experience. His legal challenges failed before a single judge and a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, both of which held that the study-leave period could not count as teaching experience and that ten years' experience was a mandatory qualification.
The Supreme Court agreed that the appellant genuinely lacked the mandatory ten years of teaching experience on the relevant date, since time spent on foreign study leave is not teaching experience, and upheld the High Court's view that this qualification was mandatory under the governing regulations. It also rejected his separate argument based on a later "exemption" order condoning 9 months of his shortfall, holding that the exemption was granted without any retrospective effect and without any direction from the Supreme Court to do so, and therefore could not cure his disqualification as it stood on the original selection date. The appeals and the connected transferred case were accordingly dismissed, though the Court left open for future cases the separate legal question of whether such exemption powers survive under the later 1982 Act.
Eligibility conditions for a public post are assessed as they stood on the relevant cut-off date, and a later exemption or relaxation order does not retroactively cure an original disqualification unless it is expressly made retrospective.
