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 Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, traditionally barred entry to women between the ages of 10 and 55 (menstruating age), based on Rule 3(b) framed under the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, and a custom said to flow from the deity's status as an eternal celibate. The Indian Young Lawyers Association and others filed a writ petition arguing this exclusion violated women's fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination, and freedom to practise religion, while the temple's authorities and worshippers argued the practice was an essential religious custom protected by their denominational rights under Article 26.
By a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court held that the exclusion of women aged 10-55 from the Sabarimala Temple was unconstitutional. The majority (CJI Misra and Justice Khanwilkar in a joint opinion, with Justices Nariman and Chandrachud writing separately) held that devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination entitled to special protection under Article 26, that the exclusion is not an essential religious practice integral to the faith, that it amounts to unconstitutional discrimination based on a biological characteristic unique to women, and that Rule 3(b) is ultra vires (beyond the powers granted by) both the parent 1965 Act and the Constitution. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, holding that the issue was non-justiciable given the petitioners' lack of personal grievance, that constitutional morality requires harmonising equality with the denomination's own right to manage its religious affairs, and that the restriction did not amount to untouchability under Article 17. The majority allowed the writ petition and struck down the restriction, with no order as to costs.
A religious practice that discriminates against women on grounds that are not shown to be an essential, integral part of the faith cannot shelter behind religious freedom or denominational rights if it conflicts with constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity, but this landmark 4:1 ruling itself provoked massive public protest and was later revisited by a larger nine-judge bench on related questions of law, illustrating that even top-court constitutional rulings on deeply contested social practices can remain legally and socially unsettled long after they are pronounced.
