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 Supreme Court's final judgment of 16 February 2018 in the Cauvery water dispute directed the Central Government to frame an implementation scheme under Section 6A of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, the State of Tamil Nadu filed a contempt petition alleging the Centre had failed to do so within the time given. The Union Government explained that it had begun consultations with the party States, but divergent views among the States led it to seek the Court's clarification on several points regarding the scheme and the composition of the proposed Cauvery Management Board, and also sought more time. Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry all raised their own objections and applications regarding specific clauses of the draft scheme.
The Supreme Court held that the draft scheme the Union had now formulated was consistent with its earlier Award (as modified by the Court) and with Section 6A of the 1956 Act, and that the States could not use objections to individual clauses as a backdoor route to reopen issues already finally settled in the original Award. It rejected specific objections relating to indenting water supplies, carry-over storage recommendations, and the scope of Entry 17 (State List) powers over water, holding each was either already addressed in the Award's apportionment principles or not a valid basis to dilute the scheme. Accepting the Union of India's assurance that the scheme would be notified and implemented with "utmost dispatch" before the onset of the monsoon, and noting that the delay had reasons beyond the control of the concerned authority, the Court decided not to pursue the contempt action further. It accordingly disposed of the contempt petition along with all connected applications (I.As. and M.As.) by this common order.
Contempt proceedings against the government for delay in complying with a court's directions can be resolved without punishment where the government demonstrates genuine effort and provides a credible assurance of compliance, but the underlying substantive directions (here, the water-sharing Award) remain binding and cannot be reopened through objections to implementation details.
