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 moreAfter the 2016 Puducherry Assembly elections, the Union Government nominated three persons (not elected representatives) as members of the Legislative Assembly under Section 3(3) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, without consulting the elected Puducherry Government. The Chief Whip and a PIL petitioner challenged this nomination in the Madras High Court, arguing that the elected Council of Ministers had to be consulted, citing past instances where such consultation had occurred. The Puducherry Assembly Speaker separately refused to recognise the nominated members, a decision the nominated members themselves successfully challenged in connected writ petitions. The Madras High Court dismissed the challenge to the nomination itself (while ruling in favour of the nominated members on the separate recognition issue), and the original challengers appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Central Government's power under Section 3(3) of the Act, 1963 to nominate up to three members to the Puducherry Assembly is a standalone statutory power that does not require consultation with, or concurrence of, the elected Council of Ministers: past instances of consultation were a matter of political courtesy, not a binding constitutional convention with the force of law. The Court separately held that nominated members are full members of the Assembly for all purposes, including the right to vote on all matters, such as the budget and no-confidence motions, since the relevant provisions (Sections 11 and 12 of the Act) draw no distinction between elected and nominated members. However, the Court found the High Court had overstepped by making specific procedural recommendations (in paragraph 5 of its judgment) for how future nominations should be made, and struck those recommendations out as unwarranted given that Rules of Business already exist for the exercise of such Central Government powers. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, upholding the validity of the 2017 nominations, subject only to deleting the High Court's recommendations.
A long-standing political practice of consultation, however frequently followed, does not by itself become a binding legal rule unless the governing statute requires it; and once validly nominated under a statute, a legislator, even a nominated, non-elected one, carries the same full voting rights as elected members unless the law expressly says otherwise.
