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 moreThis medical college's MBBS recognition process ran into repeated inspection failures by the Medical Council of India (MCI) between 2016 and early 2017, finding severe shortfalls in faculty, resident doctors, bed occupancy, equipment and basic hospital activity (e.g., zero surgeries or deliveries on inspection days). Because the college had not admitted students for two prior academic years, it argued many of its faculty were simply idle rather than genuinely deficient. Based on MCI's recommendation, the Union Government debarred the college from admitting MBBS students for 2017-18 and 2018-19 and sought to encash its Rs. 2-crore bank guarantee; the college challenged this by writ petition after being given a fresh hearing that affirmed the same decision.
The Supreme Court held that the adequacy of faculty, residents and infrastructure is a factual matter for the expert statutory body (MCI) to verify, not something the Court should re-assess itself, and found no cogent material showing the repeatedly-flagged deficiencies had actually been cured. Relying on the reasoning in its companion judgment delivered the same day in Madha Medical College's case, the Court declined to grant any relief for the already-lapsed 2017-18 academic year since the admission cut-off date had passed. It nonetheless directed that the college be given a fair opportunity for 2018-19: MCI must conduct a fresh inspection within two months, point out any remaining deficiencies, let the college rectify them, and then take a fresh, reasoned decision with a proper hearing (through the Hearing Committee framework laid down in the Amma Chandravati Trust case), while keeping the bank guarantee alive rather than encashing it.
Factual findings of an expert regulatory inspection (such as faculty or infrastructure shortfalls) are not readily reopened by courts, but due process still requires the regulator to give the institution a genuine fresh chance, with a hearing, before permanently shutting it out of future admission cycles.
