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 moreSeveral candidates were selected for a BTC teacher-training course under the physically-handicapped quota based on disability certificates issued under the Persons with Disabilities Rules, 1996. Following a complaint from an association of disabled persons alleging fraudulent certificates, the State Government ordered a fresh Medical Board to re-verify the certificates, and this re-verification found that 21% of the selected "handicapped category" candidates were not actually disabled. The candidates challenged this re-verification; the High Court's Division Bench ruled that a certificate validly issued under the 1996 Rules could not be reopened absent detected fraud, permitting only physical (not fresh medical) verification.
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order and restored the State's re-verification process. It held that fraud vitiates everything, and once a credible complaint of large-scale fraudulent certification was received, mere physical verification was inadequate, only a proper medical examination could detect disabilities like eye or ear impairment. Given that a serious, substantiated complaint existed and 21% of certificates were already found fraudulent, the Division Bench was wrong to block re-verification in the name of finality of certification. The Court directed that before any action is taken against individual candidates, they must first be given a show-cause notice, with the process to be completed within four months.
A certificate obtained by fraud carries no legal protection, however official it may look: courts will not let "finality" of a government certificate shield fraud, but due process (a show-cause opportunity) must still be given before anyone is penalized.
