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 Union Government debarred this medical college from admitting MBBS students for 2017-18 and 2018-19 and authorised encashment of its Rs. 2-crore bank guarantee, based on an MCI assessment finding deficiencies in faculty attendance verification, resident staffing, bed occupancy and clinical activity. The college's writ petition had earlier led the Supreme Court to send the matter back for a reasoned order with a proper hearing; following that hearing, the Government passed a fresh order on 31 August 2017 simply reiterating its original debarment decision, which the college again challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Court found the Government's fresh order legally unsustainable because the Hearing Committee's own report, which the Government had relied on, was itself inconclusive: it had recommended withholding renewal only "until physical re-verification of the corrections in deficiencies," without actually deciding whether the deficiencies were cured. The Government gave no independent reason for reiterating its debarment despite this uncertain recommendation and the college's fresh representation, so the Court set aside the 31 August 2017 order. However, since the underlying deficiencies were genuinely serious, the Court did not grant the college permission to admit students for 2017-18 (already lapsed); instead, following its own recent rulings in similar cases, it directed MCI to send an inspection team within three months, specify any remaining deficiencies, let the college rectify them, and have the Competent Authority take a final decision within a month of MCI's report, with any approval taking effect only from 2018-19, and the bank guarantee kept alive rather than encashed in the meantime.
A regulator cannot reiterate a prior adverse decision by leaning on its own expert committee's report when that report is itself inconclusive and calls for further verification, doing so is treated as an unreasoned, legally unsustainable order, even though the underlying concerns may still justify withholding immediate relief.
