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 moreAn adoptive mother of two children filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (later succeeded by Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020), which granted paid maternity leave to adoptive/commissioning mothers only if the adopted child was below three months of age at the time of adoption. She argued this cut-off was arbitrary because the emotional, psychological and practical demands of caring for a newly adopted child do not meaningfully differ based on whether the child is, say, two months or four months old at handover. During the case, the law itself was consolidated into the 2020 Code, and the Court allowed her petition to be amended to challenge the new provision on the same grounds.
The Supreme Court held that the three-month age cut-off had no rational nexus with the purpose of maternity benefit, which is tied to the process of motherhood and the child's need for parental bonding and care, not to childbirth itself, and so mothers adopting older children are similarly situated to those adopting younger ones. The Court also found the provision self-defeating in practice, since by the time a child is legally declared free for adoption through the required procedures, it is rarely under three months old, making the benefit illusory for most adoptive mothers. Grounding its reasoning in Article 21, the Court held that adoption is an equal exercise of reproductive and decisional autonomy, and that the "best interests of the child" principle extends beyond the formal act of adoption into the ongoing period of integration into the adoptive family. Accordingly, it struck down the three-month age limit as violative of Articles 14 and 21 and read down Section 60(4) to grant twelve weeks of maternity benefit to any woman who legally adopts a child, regardless of the child's age, or to a commissioning mother, from the date the child is handed over. The Court additionally urged the Union Government to introduce a statutory paternity leave benefit, noting existing paternity leave rules for government servants and a pending private member's bill on the subject.
Legal classifications that grant benefits based on arbitrary cut-offs (like a child's age at adoption) must have a genuine rational connection to the law's purpose. Courts can strike down or "read down" such provisions where they are irrational or practically unworkable, and constitutional rights of dignity and autonomy under Article 21 extend fully to adoptive parenthood, not just biological parenthood.
