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 moreBroadcasters challenged clauses of the 2017 TRAI Interconnection Regulations and Tariff Order, which, among other things, capped individual TV channel prices at Rs. 19, fixed bouquet-pricing formulas, and limited discounts and promotional bundling, arguing these rules improperly regulated program "content" (governed by the Copyright Act) rather than merely the "carriage"/transmission of signals, which is TRAI's proper domain under the TRAI Act. Before reaching the Supreme Court, a two-judge Division Bench of the Madras High Court had split: one judge struck down several clauses as beyond TRAI's power, while the Chief Justice dissented and upheld them; the matter then went to a third judge, M.M. Sundresh, J., who concurred with the dissenting view and upheld the regulations, resolving the reference in favour of TRAI.
The Supreme Court held that the TRAI Act and the Copyright Act operate in different fields: the Copyright Act protects a broadcaster's proprietary interest in its own content, while the TRAI Act is a public-interest regulatory statute concerned with providing a level playing field between broadcasters and the ultimate consumer/subscriber in how broadcasting services are priced, packaged and delivered. It found that the broadcaster remains free to choose what content to air and how to price channels, so long as the pricing is non-discriminatory and does not unreasonably restrict a subscriber's choice between bouquet and a-la-carte options, and that the impugned Regulation and Tariff Order did not, in substance, trespass into copyright territory. To the extent of any genuine conflict, the Court held the TRAI Act, serving the broader public interest of both broadcasters and consumers, must prevail over the Copyright Act, which protects only the broadcaster's private property rights. Finding no merit in the appeals, the Court dismissed them and upheld the TRAI Regulations and Tariff Order.
A sector regulator acting in the public interest (like TRAI, regulating how services reach consumers) can validly set rules on pricing, bundling and marketing of a service even where a rights-holder claims those rules touch on its separate intellectual-property interests: the two legal regimes can coexist, and the public-interest regulator's role is not automatically overridden by a private property right.
