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 order arose in the long-running proceedings over updating the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam pursuant to Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, a special provision created under the Assam Accord to determine citizenship for people who migrated into Assam around 1971. The State Coordinator for NRC had flagged an unresolved question in his report: how to treat the citizenship eligibility of descendants where one parent was found to be a declared foreigner or had a pending foreigner-tribunal case, while the other parent was clear and otherwise eligible. Several intervenors had also asked the Court to reopen or alter the entire NRC verification exercise on different legal parameters, and procedural questions had arisen about how securely NRC data should be maintained and how the final exclusion list (persons left out of the NRC) should be published.
The Court clarified the specific rule for descendants under Section 6A read with Section 3(1)(b) and (c) of the Citizenship Act, broadly, that for persons born before 3 December 2004, eligibility of one parent suffices, while for those born on or after that date, both parents' eligibility must be clear, and directed that this clarification be applied by the NRC authorities. It refused the intervenors' request to reopen the entire NRC exercise on new parameters, holding that the process already carried out could not now be redone, and directed that an AADHAR-like security regime be put in place for NRC data before the inclusion/exclusion lists were shared with governments, that only hard copies of the inclusion list be published at designated local centres, and that the exclusion list due on 31 August 2019 be published online and family-wise. It further directed that disputes over earlier Foreigners Tribunal orders be governed by the Gauhati High Court's ruling in Anowar Ali vs. State of Assam, and expressly noted that the ongoing NRC updation remained subject to whatever the Constitution Bench hearing the separate constitutional challenge to Section 6A (in other writ petitions) might ultimately decide.
Even within a single large, ongoing matter like the Assam NRC exercise, a court can conclusively resolve specific procedural and interpretive questions (such as how descendants' eligibility is determined, or how sensitive data must be secured) while leaving a separate, bigger constitutional question (the validity of Section 6A itself) pending before a different bench: citizens should not assume that one court order on part of an issue necessarily resolves every related legal question around it.
