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 moreFor the 2019-20 M.B.B.S. admissions in Kerala, the appellant, a candidate under the Sports Quota, wanted another candidate (Respondent No. 5, originally listed in the "Individual" sports category) shifted to the "Team" category, which the appellant believed would open a seat for him in the Individual category. The Kerala State Sports Council itself later agreed this reclassification should happen, but only after the final merit list had already been published and the admission process was well underway. A Single Judge of the Kerala High Court ordered the reclassification, but a Division Bench reversed this (without even hearing the appellant, who was not made a party), restoring the original list; the appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Division Bench. It found the appellant's claim speculative and self-serving, even with the reclassification, the appellant still had the lowest marks among Individual-category candidates, and the appellant had never joined, as a party, a third student (Antony P. Alappat) who would have been displaced from the Team category by the relief sought. The Court also noted the appellant had raised no objection at the provisional-list or final-list stage, only challenging after seats were actually allotted, and had failed to disclose to the Court that all affected students had already joined their medical colleges and that counselling was already complete: a lack of candour. Reopening the list at that late a stage would have required redoing the entire admission process and would also affect selection criteria used across other professional courses.
Courts are reluctant to disturb a completed admissions process based on late-raised, self-interested technical objections, especially where the challenger stayed silent during the earlier objection windows and withheld material facts (like the admission process already being complete) from the Court.
