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 morePrivate GSM mobile operators and their industry association challenged a directive of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) that required them to stop charging different (higher) tariffs for calls terminating on BSNL/MTNL's network compared to calls terminating on another private operator's network in four states. The operators argued the two types of calls were technically different (direct connectivity vs. indirect) and so could lawfully be charged differently, while TRAI said charging different rates to the same class of subscribers for calls to the same destination was discriminatory. The Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal rejected the operators' appeal, leading to this further appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's reasoning, holding that subscribers making calls to the same type of destination network form "the same class" of consumers regardless of the technical routing difference the operators relied on, and that charging them differently is impermissible discrimination under the Telecommunication Tariff Order. Applying the twin-test for reasonable classification from State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, the Court found the operators' distinction between calls to other private networks versus calls to BSNL/MTNL arbitrary and unjustified. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
A service provider cannot justify charging different prices to similarly situated customers merely by pointing to internal technical or routing differences that have no bearing on the service the customer actually receives: regulatory bodies can strike down such differential pricing as unlawful discrimination.
