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 Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 came into force on 25.01.2022 and, under Section 4(iii)(c)(I), imposes age restrictions on "intending couples" who may avail of gestational surrogacy. The petitioners in these tagged matters, including the applicant Arun Muthuvel, were intending couples who had already commenced their surrogacy procedures, such as creating and freezing embryos after extraction of gametes, before the Act came into force, but had not yet completed the process (i.e., embryo transfer to the surrogate mother) by the time the age-restriction provision would otherwise apply to them.
The Court held that Section 4(iii)(c)(I)'s age restriction does not operate retrospectively against intending couples who had already commenced the surrogacy procedure before the Act's commencement and were at the embryo-creation/freezing stage or on the threshold of embryo transfer. Applying the general rule against retrospective operation of statutes and Article 21 (right to personal liberty/reproductive autonomy), the Court ruled that such couples are exempted from the age-qualification certification requirement, provided they satisfy the Act's other conditions, and directed that the competent authority issue certification accordingly. The Court clarified it was deciding only the applicability of the age bar to these specific petitioners, not the constitutional validity of the age restriction itself, and left other similarly-placed couples to approach their jurisdictional High Courts rather than the Supreme Court directly.
A new law's restrictions generally do not apply retrospectively to strip away rights or processes that individuals had already lawfully begun before the law came into force: here, couples who had already started the surrogacy process before the 2021 Act's age-bar took effect could not be barred from completing it on that ground.
