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 moreA married couple who had lived in the US and Canada separated after the wife took their young son, Pranav, to India in 2013, despite a Canadian court order granting temporary custody to the husband. The husband filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the Rajasthan High Court, which the parties resolved through mediation in 2015 by agreeing to reunite as a family in the US, with detailed consent terms (finding a jointly-owned flat, withdrawing all cases, the husband arranging travel). The reconciliation broke down, each side blaming the other, and the husband filed a contempt petition; the High Court found the wife in contempt and sentenced her to six months' civil imprisonment, while also allowing the husband to pursue execution of the Canadian custody order instead of deciding the custody question itself.
The Supreme Court held the High Court erred by never actually examining whose breach caused the settlement to collapse before jumping to a contempt finding, and by effectively trying to compel the wife to resume marital cohabitation, something a court cannot force even under a formal restitution-of-conjugal-rights decree, let alone through a civil contempt order carrying the maximum punishment. It set aside the contempt finding and punishment against the wife. On the husband's cross-appeal, the Court held the High Court was also wrong to sidestep the real issue, the custody of Pranav, by merely permitting execution of the Canadian order; it set aside that direction and revived the original Habeas Corpus petition, directing the High Court to decide the custody question on its merits, including the welfare of the child. The Court closed by urging both parents to set aside their mutual blame and prioritize their son's wellbeing.
A court cannot use its contempt power to force estranged spouses back into cohabitation, and in child-custody disputes dressed up as contempt proceedings, courts must look past procedural noise to decide the real question, the welfare of the child, rather than deflecting it through execution of a foreign order.
