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 moreThis judgment disposes of a group of appeals arising from a Gauhati High Court ruling in a related case (Monowara Bewa @ Manora Bewa vs. Union of India) concerning the Assam NRC update process. The High Court, while rejecting that individual petitioner's citizenship claim, had gone further and ruled that a specific supporting document, a certificate issued by a Village Panchayat Secretary confirming a married woman's shift of residence to a new village, was legally invalid as evidence in NRC citizenship-verification claims. Because invalidating this certificate could affect large numbers of NRC applicants who were never heard in that case, several affected persons and organisations (including Rupajan Begum, the lead appellant here) separately appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have ruled on the certificate's validity at all, since that question was not essential to deciding the individual writ petition before it, and the High Court never gave notice to the many other citizens who would be affected by such a ruling (as required under Order I Rule 8 CPC for representative proceedings). On the merits, the Court also found the certificate was validly instituted: it had been agreed upon by all stakeholders (including the All Assam Students' Union and other bodies), approved by both the Assam and Union Governments, and sanctioned by the Registrar General of India. The certificate was never meant to prove citizenship by itself; it only helps establish a "linkage" between an applicant and the ancestor ("legacy person") from whom citizenship is claimed, and its contents still have to be independently verified. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's invalidation of the certificate and allowed the appeals to that limited extent, while clarifying that the certificate can only be used for this limited linkage purpose, subject to verification.
Courts should decide only the specific dispute before them and must give notice to everyone who will be affected before ruling on a broader policy question (like the validity of a document used by thousands of people), and in the Assam NRC process specifically, a Gaon Panchayat Secretary's residence-shift certificate remains valid as supporting evidence of family linkage, though it is not standalone proof of citizenship.
