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 batch of appeals concerned the legality of BDS (Bachelor of Dental Surgery) admissions granted in Rajasthan for academic year 2016-17 after the State lowered the minimum NEET-UG qualifying percentile, first by 10 percentile and then by a further 5 percentile, claiming this was authorised by a Central Government letter permitting "necessary action as deemed fit." The Rajasthan High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) had upheld these admissions as valid, treating the letter as a valid delegation of power to the State to relax the percentile.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation, holding that neither the Dentists Act nor the applicable 2007 Regulations permitted any delegation of the power to lower minimum NEET marks to a State Government, and that the vague phrase "necessary action as deemed fit" could not be stretched to confer such authority. The Court held the State of Rajasthan's twin percentile reductions were "manifestly illegal," and that at most the State could have recommended action to the Central Government/Dental Council rather than acting unilaterally. However, invoking its extraordinary power under Article 142 (and following precedent showing leniency toward students who had already progressed far into their courses through no clear fault of their own), the Court permitted students who had already completed the BDS course to retain their degrees, as a one-off equitable measure not to be treated as precedent, while directing the offending private colleges to each deposit Rs. 10 crore as a penalty (to be used for social welfare institutions) and the State of Rajasthan to deposit Rs. 10 lakh with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, for having acted without authority of law.
State governments cannot unilaterally relax national eligibility standards (like NEET cut-offs) for professional courses by stretching vague language in a central government communication, such action is ultra vires and illegal, but courts may still protect students who relied in good faith on such (illegal) admissions and have since completed their courses, while imposing significant financial penalties on the institutions and authorities responsible for the illegality.
