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 man married a woman at a temple in Kerala; she was 19 (above the legal marriageable age for women) but he was under 21, the minimum marriageable age for men under the Hindu Marriage Act. The woman's father filed a habeas corpus petition in the Kerala High Court, alleging his daughter was being illegally held by the husband, and the High Court, after concluding the marriage was invalid because the husband was underage, ordered the woman's "custody" to be handed back to her father. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court had wrongly treated an adult woman's living arrangements as a question of "custody" at all.
The Supreme Court held that even if the marriage were defective because the husband had not reached 21, under the Hindu Marriage Act such a marriage is at most "voidable," not automatically void, and in any event, the key point was that both the man and the woman were legally adults. As adults, they had a constitutional right under Articles 19 and 21 to live together, married or not (live-in relationships are themselves recognised in law), and a father cannot be given "custody" of an adult daughter who has not been shown to be illegally detained. Relying heavily on its own recent ruling in Shafin Jahan vs Asokan K.M. (the "Hadiya" case) about the primacy of an adult's right to choose a partner, the Court set aside the High Court's order, while directing that since the wife had not herself been made a party to these proceedings, she remains free to decide for herself with whom she wishes to live.
Once a person reaches adulthood, no court can treat them as someone else's "custody" to be handed over to a parent merely because the family disapproves of their choice of partner: the freedom to choose whom to live with or marry is a constitutionally protected right of every adult.
