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 petitioners, in four connected writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenged numerous provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, the Pondicherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972, and the Telangana Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1987, as being unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19, 25, 26 and 31A. One petition also sought a CBI-style investigation into alleged mismanagement at the Tiruchendur (Sri Subrahmanya Swami) Temple. The petitions had been pending, in one case, since 2012.
The Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the various state endowment laws itself. It reasoned that since the challenged Acts belong to different states with potentially distinct statutory schemes, the grievances would be better ventilated before the respective jurisdictional High Courts, which are better placed to appreciate the specific dimensions of each state law. The Court disposed of all four writ petitions, granting the petitioners liberty to file fresh petitions before the concerned High Courts, and left it open to those High Courts to consider the historical, socio-economic, cultural and religious aspects involved, and even to constitute expert committees if they consider it fit.
When a constitutional challenge concerns state-specific legislation, the Supreme Court may decline to hear it directly under Article 32 and instead direct petitioners to approach the relevant High Court, which has the territorial and subject-matter familiarity to deal with that particular state's law.
