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 college in Allahabad was granted permission by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) in 2005 to run a two-year Basic Teachers' Certificate (BTC) course, subject to certain conditions, but it never fulfilled those conditions. The college was later declared a "Deemed University" (Nehru Gram Bharati) in 2008 and, without having complied with the NCTE's conditions, went ahead and admitted students to the BTC course for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 academic sessions. When the state education body (SCERT) refused to recognise the course and certificates, affected students filed writ petitions, which the Allahabad High Court's Division Bench dismissed, holding the course was never validly authorised, while also ordering the University to refund fees and pay Rs. 50,000 compensation to each affected student.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the Deemed University had no valid authorisation to run the BTC course for those two academic years, since it never met the specific conditions attached to NCTE's original 2005 permission letter and only secured proper recognition for the course starting in 2012. The Court rejected the University's argument that a different, more lenient set of regulations applied, and rejected the students' argument that equity should validate their unrecognised degrees, holding that an unrecognised course cannot be given legal validity merely on sympathetic grounds. Because the University's own negligence caused the harm, the Court declined to waive the compensation ordered by the High Court and dismissed all the appeals as without merit.
Institutions must actually fulfil the specific conditions attached to a regulatory approval (not just obtain a general permission or university status) before offering a professional course; students harmed by an institution's non-compliance may be entitled to fee refunds and compensation, but courts will not retroactively "recognise" an unauthorised degree purely out of sympathy.
