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 moreTen students who had qualified in the NEET examination applied for MBBS admission at Malabar Medical College in Kerala but missed the online application deadline due to a website glitch, despite having obtained their fee demand drafts in time. After the Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC) allowed seven other similarly-placed complainants to be added to the eligible list, the College extended the same relief to the ten appellants and admitted them. Nearly nine months later, the ASC disapproved these admissions for not being on the original online list, and the Kerala High Court upheld that decision, prompting the students to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found that the appellants had genuinely held valid demand drafts before the cut-off date, were admitted strictly on NEET merit, and that no higher-ranked candidate had ever complained of being denied a seat in their place, unlike the precedent relied on by the High Court (Rishabh Choudhary), where admissions bypassed NEET altogether. It held the College's extension of the same relief given to seven original complainants to similarly-placed students was not mala fide, especially since the University had already registered the appellants and the High Court itself had let them sit the First Year exam. Given this delay and the absence of any prejudiced higher-ranked candidate, the Court set aside both the ASC's and the High Court's orders and allowed the appeal, letting the admissions stand.
Procedural admission deadlines matter, but when a genuine technical glitch prevented timely compliance, a student had proof of good-faith preparation (like a pre-deadline demand draft), was admitted strictly on true merit, and no other more-deserving candidate was displaced, courts will be reluctant to cancel admissions years later, especially after the student has already been studying and appearing for exams in reliance on that admission.
