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 Central Government had debarred a private medical college (G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust) from admitting students for two years after a Hearing Committee found serious deficiencies, including a severely anaemic maternity patient discharged untreated, mishandled ICU admissions unrelated to cardiac conditions, and unexplained acquisition of 14 cadavers without proper permission. While the Supreme Court was still seized of a related writ petition and had expressly barred the High Court from passing any interim order for that academic year, the college withdrew its Supreme Court petition and filed a fresh writ before the Allahabad High Court, which, without waiting for replies from the Medical Council of India or the Central Government, quashed the debarment and allowed the college to admit students, all within about three days.
The Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court's judgment as reflecting "unnecessary and uncalled for hurry" and a breach of judicial propriety, noting the Central Government and MCI were denied even an opportunity to file counter-affidavits before the matter was decided. The Court held the High Court had no basis to override the Supreme Court's own directive confining relief to a reconsideration process by the Central Government, confirmed its earlier interim order debarring any students who had been admitted from continuing the course, and upheld the two-year debarment. Because students had been lured into admission by the college's "unholy" conduct, the Court ordered the college to refund their fees and additionally pay Rs. 10 lakh compensation to each affected student, and imposed Rs. 25 lakh in costs on the college to be deposited with the Court. The college's separate request regarding the 2018-2019 academic session was rejected, and the appeal was allowed.
Courts are expected to respect procedural fairness, deciding a case without giving all parties a chance to respond is itself a ground for the Supreme Court to step in and reverse a lower court, and institutions that game the legal process to admit students despite serious compliance failures can be made to personally compensate the students harmed, on top of losing the case.
