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 physically handicapped candidate, applied in 2001 for selection to posts including Deputy Collector through the U.P. Public Service Commission's Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service Examination, listing Deputy Collector as his first preference. He was selected overall but recommended for appointment as a Trade Tax Officer (his second preference) under the handicapped quota rather than as Deputy Collector, and he joined as Trade Tax Officer in 2004 while separately pursuing a writ petition claiming he should instead have been appointed Deputy Collector. A later interim order of the Allahabad High Court (in an unrelated 2010 case) led the State to carry out a roster-based backlog exercise identifying which years' Deputy Collector vacancies should have been reserved for physically handicapped candidates, and the appellant argued that the 2001-2002 vacancy identified in that exercise should go to him.
The Supreme Court held that the State had properly carried out its roster/backlog calculation for physically handicapped reservation starting from 1997-98 (the year after the relevant disability law came into force) and had identified and filled the correct number of backlog vacancies in accordance with that roster: the appellant's suggestion that the calculation should instead start from 1995 was rejected. The Court agreed with the High Court that forcing the appellant into the 2001-2002 vacancy more than a decade later would unfairly disturb the seniority of everyone appointed as Deputy Collector in the intervening years. Since the reservation requirement itself had been duly honoured by the State's exercise, even though the appellant personally was not the one appointed under it, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
Correctly implementing a reservation policy as a general, system-wide roster obligation (filling the right proportion of posts over time) can satisfy the law even if a specific individual who feels entitled to a particular post does not personally benefit, especially where granting that individual relief years later would unfairly disrupt the seniority of many others appointed in between.
