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 moreRajive Raturi, a visually disabled petitioner, filed this public-interest writ petition years earlier seeking court-ordered accessibility measures (audible traffic signals, tactile pavement blocks, accessible buses/trains/airports, accessible government buildings and websites, sign-language interpreters, etc.) for persons with disabilities. By the time of this order, Parliament had enacted the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which itself imposed statutory deadlines on the Government for many of these very measures through the "Accessible India Campaign" (AIC). The Court had been monitoring compliance through periodic status reports filed by the Union and State Governments.
The Court found that while the Central Government had taken some steps, most State Governments had made little or no progress: for instance, only seven states had even identified government buildings for accessibility retrofitting, well past the original deadline. Holding that the ten action points sought by the petitioner were now statutory obligations under the 2016 Act (a position the Union itself had conceded), the Court went through each action point, accessible government buildings, airports, railway stations, public transport, government websites/documents, building codes, and sign-language interpreter training, and issued a fresh set of concrete, revised deadlines (ranging from February 2018 to December 2019) for compliance, while making clear no further extensions would be granted for some already-missed targets. The matter was not closed outright but kept listed for a further compliance report after three months, consistent with the Court's practice of continuing supervision ("continuing mandamus") in this kind of PIL.
Where a statute (here, the Disabilities Act, 2016) itself fixes a government's accessibility obligations and deadlines, courts will enforce those deadlines directly rather than treat them as aspirational, and will keep a matter under ongoing judicial supervision, with fresh timelines, until genuine compliance is shown.
