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 moreAfter the 2025 CLAT examination, several candidates challenged the correctness of the answer key for a number of questions before various High Courts, which were consolidated before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court's Division Bench ruled on the disputed questions, and both a candidate and the examination-conducting body (the Consortium of National Law Universities) appealed to the Supreme Court, disputing the correctness of six specific questions (Nos. 56, 77, 78, 88, 115 and 116) covering topics from constitutional law to logical reasoning to statistics.
The Court went through each disputed question individually. It expressed strong displeasure at the "callous and casual" manner in which CLAT questions had been framed, noting this was not the first time such issues had arisen. For Questions 56 and 77, it held that an additional answer option was also logically defensible and directed that credit be given for both options. For Question 78, it agreed with the High Court that only one answer was correct. For Question 88, it held that since a nearly identical question (85) had already been deleted by the examination body itself, consistency required Question 88 to be deleted too. For Questions 115 and 116 (requiring complex mathematical calculation unsuited to an objective test, and cross-referencing a flawed question respectively), it ordered both deleted for all candidates. The Consortium was directed to revise the answer key and results and begin counselling within two weeks.
Courts will readily step into academic/examination matters, despite normal reluctance, when the examination body itself has acted carelessly in a way that affects the career prospects of thousands of students; candidates who can show a question or answer key is genuinely flawed or inconsistent have a real remedy in court.
