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 person with a locomotor disability (club foot, finger deformities) and a speech and language disability, together computing to a 58% disability, had an excellent academic record and secured a good rank in the NEET-UG 2024 exam under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category. A Disability Assessment Board at Government Medical College, Chandigarh, however, declared him ineligible for the MBBS course based purely on his quantified disability percentage, without assessing his actual functional ability, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld this denial. The Supreme Court had earlier directed AIIMS to set up a fresh medical board, including a specific expert, Dr. Satendra Singh, to properly assess whether his disability would actually prevent him from pursuing medical studies.
Five of the six AIIMS board members largely reiterated that the appellant was unsuitable for the MBBS programme, but Dr. Satendra Singh's separate, more detailed opinion found that the appellant could pursue medical studies with reasonable accommodations and assistive technology, and concluded that incompetence should not be presumed at the outset. The Supreme Court preferred Dr. Singh's individualized, functional assessment over the more generalized opinion of the other members, holding it better satisfied the legal standard set in the Court's own earlier rulings (Omkar Ramchandra Gond and Om Rathod) requiring a genuine, detailed functional assessment rather than a mechanical disability-percentage cutoff. It confirmed the admission it had already provisionally granted to the appellant at a government medical college in Sirohi, Rajasthan, set aside the High Court's contrary order, and separately directed the National Medical Commission to report on its progress in issuing revised, disability-rights-compliant admission guidelines as previously ordered.
A person with a disability cannot be denied admission to a professional course based merely on a quantified disability percentage; authorities must conduct an individualized, functional assessment of whether the person can actually perform the course's requirements, with reasonable accommodations, before ruling them out.
