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 moreTwo private medical colleges in Kerala (Kannur Medical College and Karuna Medical College) had admitted around 180 students in 2016-17 in violation of Supreme Court-mandated NEET-based, online, centralised-counselling admission procedures. The Admission Supervisory Committee found these admissions illegal, a finding upheld by the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court. To rescue the affected students, the Kerala government promulgated the Kerala Professional Colleges (Regularisation of Admission in Medical Colleges) Ordinance, 2017, to retroactively validate the illegal admissions, effectively overriding the binding judicial findings.
The Supreme Court held that the Kerala Ordinance was an unconstitutional legislative attempt to nullify final, binding judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court, which had already conclusively held the admissions illegal. The Court reasoned that a legislature can change the basis of a law prospectively but cannot simply declare a judicial decision wrong and nullify it by purporting to validate what courts had struck down: that violates the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature. It rejected arguments that affected students deserved relief on NEET-merit grounds, holding that the matter stood finally adjudicated and could not be reopened, and that Article 142 could not be used to perpetuate an illegality already conclusively declared unlawful. The writ petitions were allowed and the Ordinance was declared ultra vires.
A state legislature cannot use an ordinance or statute to directly overturn or nullify a specific binding court judgment, once a court has finally decided a dispute, the legislature's remedy (if any) is to change the law prospectively for future cases, not to retroactively erase a judicial finding of illegality.
