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 appellant was elected Adhyaksha (chairperson) of the Zilla Panchayat, Bellary, from a seat reserved for Backward Class-B (Woman). A group of voters (who were not members of the Zilla Panchayat) challenged her election in the Karnataka High Court, alleging she did not actually belong to the backward class and had used a false caste certificate. The Single Judge dismissed their writ petition as barred by Article 243-O of the Constitution (which bars courts from interfering in panchayat election disputes except through a statutory election petition), but a Division Bench reversed this and remanded the matter, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
The core legal question was whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable at all, given Article 243-O's bar and a State rule restricting election petitions to Zilla Panchayat members only. The Supreme Court held that judicial review under Articles 226/227 is part of the Constitution's basic structure (citing Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills, L. Chandra Kumar and I.R. Coelho) and cannot be ousted by a statute; since the challenging voters were not panchayat members, they had no alternate election-petition remedy and could not be left remediless. The Court therefore held the writ petition maintainable, upheld the Division Bench's remand, and directed the Single Judge to decide the writ petition expeditiously (within four weeks), while allowing the appellant to continue functioning as Adhyaksha in the meantime, subject to the final outcome.
The Constitution's basic structure guarantees citizens access to judicial review under Articles 226/227 even where a specific statute appears to bar court interference: a person with no other legal remedy available cannot be shut out of the courts entirely.
