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 appellant, a person with benchmark locomotor disability (missing multiple fingers on both hands and toes on one foot) belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, scored very well in NEET-UG 2024 and easily cleared the cut-off for the SC/PwBD (persons with benchmark disabilities) quota, but was denied admission to MBBS after two separate medical boards assessed him as ineligible under existing National Medical Commission norms. His writ petition and appeal were both rejected by the Delhi High Court, which upheld the medical boards' findings.
The Supreme Court, relying on its own recent precedents (Om Rathod and Anmol) recognising that PwBD candidates are entitled to "reasonable accommodation" and assistive devices rather than blanket exclusion, directed a fresh, more rigorous functional assessment by a specially constituted AIIMS Delhi medical board. That board found the appellant could successfully perform core clinical skills (chest compressions, IV cannulation, intubation, suturing) with only a minor difficulty putting on gloves, which the Court held was not a valid ground to deny him admission. Noting that a candidate who had scored lower than the appellant had already been admitted to the same reserved seat category, the Court held the denial was arbitrary and violated Articles 14, 16 and 21, set aside the High Court's order, and directed NMC to allot the appellant a seat in the 2025-26 MBBS session without requiring him to sit NEET again, while also directing NMC to finalize revised, non-discriminatory guidelines within two months.
A disability alone cannot be used to deny a qualified candidate admission to a professional course: authorities must individually and functionally assess what the person can actually do, and "reasonable accommodation" for persons with disabilities is a constitutional right, not a discretionary favour.
