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 moreThese review petitions sought reconsideration of the Supreme Court's 18 July 2013 judgment in Christian Medical College Vellore v. Union of India (2014) 2 SCC 305, which had invalidated the common NEET examination for admission to medical and dental courses. The review petitions were initially placed before a three-Judge Bench, but since a related appeal (Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2009) involving the same issue had been referred to a five-Judge Bench, these review petitions were also transferred to be heard by the five-Judge Bench.
The Bench heard extensive arguments on the scope of review and considered precedents on when a review is permissible, including Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar. Without going into detailed reasons at that stage (so as not to prejudice the rehearing of the underlying matter), the Court concluded that the 2013 judgment needed reconsideration, noting that the earlier majority view had not considered certain binding precedents and that there had been no discussion among the Bench members before that judgment was pronounced. It accordingly allowed the review petitions, recalled the 18 July 2013 judgment, and directed that the underlying matters be heard afresh.
Even a judgment of the Supreme Court itself can be recalled through a review petition if it is later found that the earlier Bench overlooked binding precedent or did not deliberate collectively before delivering its verdict, but a review order recalling a judgment is deliberately kept brief on reasoning, precisely so it does not prejudge the fresh hearing that follows.
