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 moreK. Umadevi, a government school teacher in Tamil Nadu, had two children from her first marriage (2007 and 2011), which was later dissolved. She remarried and, from that subsisting marriage, wished to have her first child while in government service, for which she sought maternity leave. The State refused, and a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held she was not entitled to maternity leave, reversing a Single Judge who had ruled in her favour, reasoning that she already had two surviving children and so fell foul of the two-child population-control policy underlying the leave rules.
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's ruling and held that Umadevi was entitled to maternity leave under Fundamental Rule 101(a). It reasoned that her two children from her first marriage were born before she even entered government service and are in her ex-husband's custody, while the child in question is her first (and only) biological child born during her subsisting marriage and government service. The Court held that maternity benefit provisions must be interpreted purposively, and that the objective of population control and the objective of granting maternity benefits to women employees are not mutually exclusive. They must be harmonised rather than used to defeat each other. It directed that her maternity benefits be released within two months.
Population-control ("two-child") restrictions on maternity benefits should not be applied mechanically by simply counting a woman's total biological children across different marriages; courts will look at the real, purposive intent of maternity-benefit rules, especially where the earlier children are not from the subsisting marriage or in the employee's custody.
