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 writ petition raised concerns about the rights, conditions of detention, and institutional safeguards available to prisoners with disabilities in Indian prisons. The Court had earlier, in a related case (L. Muruganantham v. State of Tamil Nadu), laid down a detailed framework for identifying disabled prisoners, providing accessible infrastructure, healthcare, and monitoring mechanisms. In this petition, on 2 December 2025 the Court had already extended and supplemented those directions, and this later order deals with implementation.
The Supreme Court directed that the earlier framework from L. Muruganantham be extended nationwide to all States and Union Territories, with a robust and independent grievance redressal mechanism for disabled prisoners, inclusive education facilities, and application of Section 89 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 to prisons. The Court constituted (or continued) a High-Powered Committee, empowering it to ensure compliance by States/UTs, formulate a uniform action plan for supplying assistive devices and mobility aids to prisoners, seek expert and civil-society assistance (with costs borne by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment), and submit a status report to the Court within four months. The Court grounded these directions in the constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 21, holding that incarceration cannot dilute these fundamental protections. The matter was listed for further hearing on 1 September 2026 along with a connected writ petition.
Constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality under Articles 14 and 21 extend fully to prisoners with disabilities, and courts can use structural mechanisms like a High-Powered Committee to compel systemic, nationwide compliance rather than leaving implementation to individual prison authorities.
