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 moreKMCT Medical College sought renewal of permission to admit a third batch of 150 MBBS students for 2018-19, after an earlier inspection flagged deficiencies (e.g., a single-slice CT scanner, a short examination hall). A Hearing Committee found two deficiencies appeared rectified and suggested the Medical Council of India (MCI) review without fresh verification, but MCI instead conducted a second inspection in March 2018, which found numerous new deficiencies (faculty and resident shortages, padded patient admissions, inadequate examination hall capacity) and recommended against renewal, capping admission at 100 seats. The College successfully challenged this before the Kerala High Court, which held MCI was bound to follow the Hearing Committee's suggestion and ordered the College be allowed to admit 150 students; MCI appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that MCI, as the expert statutory body safeguarding medical education standards, is not barred from conducting a second or subsequent inspection, even close on the heels of an earlier one, and is not restricted to re-verifying only the specific deficiencies flagged before: it may examine compliance with minimum standards generally. The Hearing Committee's suggestion that MCI "may" skip fresh verification was only a suggestion, not a binding direction, and the manner of compliance verification is left to MCI's discretion as the body empowered to conduct physical inspection. The Court reiterated that an expert body's decision on adequacy of medical college facilities should not be lightly disturbed by courts absent jurisdictional error, patent perversity, or mala fide, none of which the College had shown here. The High Court's judgment was therefore set aside and MCI's appeal allowed, restoring MCI's recommendation against the enhanced intake.
Expert regulatory bodies like the Medical Council of India retain broad discretion to re-inspect and reassess compliance with safety/quality standards (such as hospital infrastructure and staffing in medical colleges), and courts will not second-guess such expert technical findings unless there is clear illegality or bad faith.
