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 moreAkhila, a 24-year-old homeopathy graduate from Kerala who converted to Islam and took the name Hadiya, left her parental home after disagreements with her family over her change of faith. Her father filed a habeas corpus petition in the Kerala High Court alleging she was being illegally confined and might be trafficked abroad. While the petition was pending, Hadiya married Shafin Jahan. The Kerala High Court, instead of simply determining whether she was being illegally held, went further and annulled her marriage, treating her as vulnerable to exploitation despite her being a legally competent adult who told the court she had married by her own free choice. Shafin Jahan appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a habeas corpus court's only job is to determine whether a person is being illegally detained; once Hadiya appeared before the Court and confirmed she was not confined and had married of her own free will, the purpose of the habeas corpus petition was over, and the High Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever to go on and annul her marriage. The Court held that the right to choose one's own life partner, and one's own faith, is part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, lying within an individual's core zone of privacy and autonomy that neither family, society, nor the State can dictate, citing the Court's own recent nine-judge privacy ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. It held the High Court's view of Hadiya as "weak and vulnerable" at 24 reflected an impermissible paternalism that had no place in constitutional adjudication, and that whether or not she married Shafin Jahan was simply irrelevant to the habeas corpus proceeding. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment annulling the marriage, and clarified that while the National Investigation Agency's separate probe into any possible criminality could continue, the validity of Hadiya's marriage itself could not be the subject of that investigation and the agency could not use it to interfere in the couple's lawful life together.
A habeas corpus case can only decide whether someone is being illegally confined: courts cannot use it as a vehicle to approve or disapprove of an adult's personal choices in marriage or faith; the right to choose one's own spouse and religion is a core part of the fundamental right to life and liberty that no family member, court, or investigating agency can override.
