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 appellant-father and respondent-mother married in 2010 and lived in the United States, where they had two sons, including Aadvik (born 2012). After the marriage broke down in 2014, a US (Virginia) family court ordered the father to return Aadvik to the mother's custody. In 2015, the father instead brought the child to India without the mother's consent, prompting the mother to seek a writ of habeas corpus from the Delhi High Court, which in 2016 ordered the father to hand over custody to the mother. The Supreme Court stayed that order pending appeal, and the child remained with the father throughout.
The Supreme Court held that in cross-border child removal cases, the touchstone for a habeas corpus custody determination is the child's actual welfare, not mechanical deference to a foreign court's custody order or to the "comity of courts" and "closest concern" doctrines the High Court had relied on. Given that Aadvik (then about 5) had spent roughly half his life settled in India with extended family and in school, with no evidence that continuing in his father's care was harmful, the Court found no basis for his immediate, potentially disruptive repatriation. It set aside the High Court's habeas corpus order and allowed the appeal, directing that custody remain with the father, expressly subject to the outcome of a separate, already-pending custody proceeding under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 before the Family Court in Delhi, which would decide the substantive custody question on its own merits.
In international parental child-removal disputes, Indian courts decide habeas corpus custody questions based on the child's actual, settled welfare and circumstances, not by automatically enforcing a foreign court's custody order or by favouring whichever parent holds formal legal custody rights.
