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 moreSree Balaji Medical College sought to increase its MBBS admission capacity from 150 to 250 seats, but the Medical Council of India (MCI) rejected the request on the basis of an internal committee decision (dated 14.03.2014) that no college could get an increase unless its existing (lower) admission strength was itself formally "recognized" by the Central Government first. The college argued this requirement had no basis in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or its regulations, and approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 after the MCI relied on this policy to deny the increase.
The Supreme Court examined Sections 10A and 11 of the Act and the applicable 2000 Regulations and held that the Act does not require separate "recognition" of admission capacity (as distinct from recognition of the course/qualification itself) before capacity can be increased: recognition under Section 11 applies to medical qualifications, not to a specific seat count. The Court found the MCI's 14.03.2014 policy decision had no legal basis and was therefore to be disregarded, especially noting that two other colleges (S.P. Medical College, Bikaner and Maulana Azad Medical College, Delhi) had been granted capacity increases without this same recognition precondition being applied. It rejected the MCI's objection that the writ was not maintainable, since the facts were undisputed and the dispute was purely a question of law suitable for Article 32. The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the respondents to reconsider the college's application for the increase from 150 to 250 seats for the 2015-16 academic session and pass a fresh decision within two weeks.
A regulatory body cannot impose extra preconditions on a statutory benefit (like increasing medical college seats) that are not actually found in the governing Act or its regulations, and inconsistent treatment of similarly situated institutions can itself be a ground for striking down such an informal policy.
