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 more44 doctors who completed their MBBS/BDS courses in Karnataka and cleared the NEET-PG 2018 exam with good merit challenged Clause 4.1 of Karnataka's 2018 Information Bulletin for postgraduate medical/dental admissions. That clause required a candidate to be of "Karnataka origin" (essentially a domicile-type requirement going beyond merely having studied in Karnataka) to compete even for the state's own government-quota seats, which effectively shut out meritorious students who had studied in Karnataka but did not separately satisfy the origin test.
The Court held that this was squarely covered by its own earlier decision in Vishal Goyal v. State of Karnataka (2014), which had struck down an identically worded clause in the 2014 Bulletin as unconstitutional. Relying on a long line of precedent (including Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India) holding that reservation in postgraduate medical admissions based on residence/domicile violates Article 14's guarantee of equality, since merit must be the dominant criterion at that advanced level of specialisation, the Court declared Clause 4.1 invalid to the extent it disqualified petitioners and similarly-placed candidates who had completed their MBBS/BDS from Karnataka colleges from competing for government-quota postgraduate seats. It allowed the writ petition and directed the State to amend the Bulletin and complete the admission process accordingly.
A state cannot use a "domicile" or "origin" requirement to deny meritorious candidates a fair shot at postgraduate medical admission merely because they do not also satisfy additional residence criteria beyond having studied in that state: reservation/preference schemes in higher medical education must yield to the constitutional guarantee of equality and merit.
