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 West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. advertised 30 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade II, including one post reserved for an Unreserved-category candidate with Low Vision disability (UR (PWD-LV)) and five posts for the OBC-A social category, with a notification condition that if no qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidate was available, the vacancy would go to PWD candidates of other categories by merit. Respondent No. 1 (a UR-category PWD-LV candidate) and Respondent No. 3 (an OBC-A category candidate who was also PWD-LV, but with no dedicated OBC-A (PWD-LV) horizontal slot) both competed for the single UR (PWD-LV) post, with Respondent No. 3 being more meritorious overall. The Calcutta High Court's Division Bench held that when a qualified unreserved PWD-LV candidate exists, the post must go to that unreserved candidate regardless of a more meritorious PWD candidate from a reserved category, reversing a Single Judge who had ruled otherwise.
The Supreme Court applied the "compartmentalised reservation" framework from Anil Kumar Gupta and Saurav Yadav v. State of UP, under which horizontal (disability) reservation posts are to be distributed across vertical (social) categories by first checking whether a more meritorious horizontal-category candidate from a reserved social category can be adjusted into the open/unreserved slot on merit, before filling it from within that specific unreserved category. Applying this, since Respondent No. 3 was more meritorious than Respondent No. 1 in the PWD-LV category overall (and there was no separate OBC-A (PWD-LV) horizontal quota into which he could instead be slotted), he was entitled to be adjusted against the Unreserved PWD-LV vacancy purely on merit. The Court clarified an important limiting principle: a reserved-category candidate claiming an unreserved post this way must not have availed any relaxation in eligibility criteria meant for reserved candidates, since unreserved posts require equal essential qualifications for all, and here nothing showed Respondent No. 3 had availed any such relaxation. Finding that the Division Bench had misunderstood the recruitment notification's true implication, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the original Single Judge order in Respondent No. 3's favour.
In horizontal (e.g., disability) reservations that cut across social/vertical categories, merit, not the candidate's social category label, decides who fills an "unreserved" horizontal slot, provided the more meritorious reserved-category candidate did not benefit from any relaxed eligibility criteria meant for their reserved category; this ensures affirmative action doesn't disadvantage more meritorious candidates from reserved groups when competing on equal terms for unreserved posts.
