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 moreThis was a batch of six appeals (led by Civil Appeal No. 364 of 2005) raising a common question: when India's two regulatory bodies for architecture education, the Council of Architecture (CoA), created under the Architects Act, 1972, and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), created under the AICTE Act, 1987, give conflicting directions to an institution running an architecture course, which one's mandate prevails? The lead appeal arose from a Bombay High Court judgment, with the other appeals arising from similar disputes before the Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Kerala High Courts.
The Supreme Court held that the 1972 Architects Act, and therefore the Council of Architecture, governs recognition of degrees and diplomas in architecture education, and that the AICTE has no regulatory authority over architecture courses on this score. The Court reasoned that the word "architecture" appearing in the AICTE Act's definition of "technical education" must be read down/construed as inapplicable in this context to avoid an unworkable overlap between the two statutes, and rejected AICTE's argument that the 1972 Act stood impliedly repealed by the later 1987 Act. Applying this ruling to the lead appeal specifically, the Court sustained the Bombay High Court's judgment and dismissed AICTE's appeal (Civil Appeal No. 364 of 2005); the other tagged appeals were disposed of individually in light of the same legal principle.
When two statutory regulators have overlapping-sounding powers, courts will look at the real legislative purpose of each law rather than the literal breadth of a shared word: here, specialised architecture education stayed with the specialised regulator (CoA) rather than the general technical-education regulator (AICTE).
