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 15-year-old boy with abdominal pain, fever, and eye haemorrhage was admitted to a hospital and operated on to remove roundworms from his intestine, even though his blood platelet count was dangerously low (35,000 per cu.mm against a normal range of 1.5 to 4 lakh). He continued bleeding after surgery, was shifted to another hospital, and died a few days later. His father filed a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence by the operating surgeon and hospital.
The State Consumer Commission found the surgeon negligent for operating despite the critically low platelet count and awarded compensation against both the hospital and the surgeon, but the National Commission absolved the surgeon of personal liability, calling him only "a wee bit negligent." The Supreme Court disagreed, holding there was no evidence that the surgery was the only life-saving option available at the time, so operating on a patient with such a low platelet count was an unreasonable decision, not a mere bona fide clinical judgment call, and the finding of negligence against the surgeon could not be erased. On compensation, the Court held that since the hospital's liability for the surgeon's conduct was vicarious (the surgeon was employed there), the full enhanced amount of Rs. 6,00,000 should be paid by the hospital, and partly allowed the appeal on that basis.
A doctor's treatment choice is given latitude for genuine differences of medical opinion, but that protection fails when there is no evidence that a risky procedure was truly the only option, and a hospital remains financially accountable for its employed doctor's negligence even where a lower forum tries to let the individual doctor off.
