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 Cauvery water-sharing dispute between Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry was finally decided by the Supreme Court on 16th February 2018. Since then, several applications have remained pending regarding implementation, including: Tamil Nadu's application to stop Karnataka from proceeding with a Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir-cum-Drinking Water project; a related contempt petition; Tamil Nadu's application demanding Karnataka return 80% of Bengaluru's treated drinking-water usage back into the Cauvery system and not divert non-consumptive use to another river basin; and a public interest writ petition seeking proper implementation of the 2018 judgment.
The Court held that the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water Regulatory Committee (CWRC), both expert bodies constituted by the Union of India to implement the Tribunal's Award as modified by the Court, were the appropriate forums for such disputes, and that courts should refrain from entering technical areas better handled by experts. It rejected Tamil Nadu's application to halt Karnataka's Mekedatu DPR as premature and misconceived since the DPR itself required CWMA approval before consideration, while clarifying Karnataka remained bound to release water as directed and measured at Biligundulu, failing which it risked contempt. Tamil Nadu's application regarding Bengaluru's water use was disposed of with a direction that any grievance be raised before the CWC/CWMA/CWRC, which would decide expeditiously. The connected contempt petition, other miscellaneous applications, and the writ petition were all disposed of in similar terms, with no separate orders needed since the CWMA/CWRC already existed for implementation.
Once the Supreme Court has finally settled a complex inter-state dispute and set up dedicated technical/regulatory bodies for implementation, courts will generally defer to those expert bodies for ongoing operational grievances rather than repeatedly re-adjudicating implementation details themselves.
