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 moreTamil Nadu filed an original suit directly in the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution against Karnataka and the Union of India, alleging that Karnataka was unilaterally constructing check dams and diversion structures across the inter-State Pennaiyar river and its tributaries without Tamil Nadu's consent, impeding the river's natural flow and depriving Tamil Nadu of its share of the water. Tamil Nadu sought declarations that the construction was illegal, injunctions against further construction, and a direction to the Union to act on its complaint. Ministerial-level negotiations between the two States, as mandated by the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, failed to produce a settlement, with Tamil Nadu insisting the dispute be referred for adjudication by a Tribunal.
The Court noted that the Union of India's own affidavit confirmed the negotiation process had been indefinitely deferred because Tamil Nadu had firmly taken the position that the dispute should go to a Tribunal rather than continued talks. Relying on its earlier precedent in T.N. Cauvery Neerppasana Vilaiporulgal Vivasayigal Nala Urimai Padhugappa Sangam v. Union of India, the Court held that once negotiation under the Central Government's aegis fails to resolve an inter-State river water dispute, the Central Government is statutorily obligated (the word "shall," not "may") to constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal. It accordingly directed the Central Government to notify and constitute such a Tribunal within one month, while keeping all substantive questions about the actual water-sharing entitlements open for the Tribunal to decide.
When inter-State negotiations over shared river waters break down, the law does not leave the dispute in limbo: the Central Government has a mandatory (not discretionary) duty to set up a Tribunal to adjudicate it, and the Supreme Court will enforce that obligation through a specific timebound direction.
