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 petitioner, appearing in person, challenged the practical operation of Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, arguing that illiterate citizens, visually impaired persons, persons with other disabilities, persons below the poverty line, and persons without internet access could not effectively exercise their right to information because the Act's machinery was not genuinely accessible to them. Although the petition initially framed the issue as a constitutional challenge under Article 14, at the hearing the petitioner's actual request narrowed to seeking a direction that the Union, States, and Union Territories set up effective machinery to help such persons access information under the Act. The Court sought the assistance of the Attorney General for India, who presented a chart addressing the specific objections raised.
The Court chose not to rule on the constitutional validity of Section 6, treating that issue as unnecessary given how the relief sought had narrowed. After reviewing the existing framework, including requirements for proof of BPL status and the various modes of payment and access already provided, the Court found the Attorney General's explanation of the current arrangements satisfactory and held that no further specific direction was required. It granted the petitioner liberty to submit a representation to the competent authority identifying any additional modes needed to make information genuinely accessible, directing that any such representation be considered with sympathy, concern and empathy, and asking the authorities to explore newer accessible technology. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms with no order as to costs.
Where existing government machinery already substantially addresses a stated grievance, the Supreme Court may decline to issue fresh directions and instead channel the citizen back to the competent administrative authority with a representation, but will underline that authorities must treat such representations from persons with disabilities with genuine empathy rather than bureaucratic indifference.
