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 moreKerala enacted a law (the Kerala Medical Officers' Admission to Postgraduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008) allowing in-service doctors to be admitted to postgraduate medical courses purely on the basis of seniority, under a 40% reserved quota. Some candidates challenged this before the Kerala High Court, arguing that admissions criteria for medical education could only be set by Medical Council of India (MCI) regulations, not state seniority rules. The High Court agreed in part, holding that seniority could still apply but only among candidates who had cleared the MCI's common entrance test with minimum eligibility marks; the in-service doctors appealed that qualification to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that medical education admission standards fall under Entry 66 of the Union List (coordination of standards in higher education), which is the exclusive domain of the Union/MCI, and a state law under the Concurrent List (Entry 25) cannot override MCI regulations that require selection strictly on inter se academic merit. The Court found the State's seniority-based scheme itself invalid for displacing merit as the basis for selection, going further than the High Court by holding that even among in-service candidates who clear the entrance test, further selection should be on merit (with permissible weightage for rural service), not on seniority alone. Accordingly, the appeals challenging the High Court's judgment were dismissed, and the High Court's underlying reasoning (merit, not seniority, must govern) was effectively upheld and reinforced.
A state legislature cannot pass a law that overrides a central regulatory body's (here, the MCI's) binding standards for professional education admissions: seniority in government service cannot substitute for merit-based selection where a central regulator has prescribed merit as the basis.
