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 moreStudents who took the 2018 NEET-UG medical entrance exam in Tamil complained that 49 questions were mistranslated from English, causing confusion. The Madras High Court agreed and ordered that all roughly 24,000 students who took the exam in Tamil be given 4 grace marks per flawed question (196 marks total), regardless of how they actually answered those questions. CBSE and other affected students appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing this blanket award was unfair and skewed the merit list.
The Supreme Court found that while some translation errors did occur, students had been expressly instructed (on the question paper and hall ticket) to refer to the English version in case of any ambiguity, and the errors were the kind that could reasonably have been spotted and resolved that way. The Court held that awarding full marks to every Tamil-medium candidate for all 49 questions regardless of whether they even attempted or answered those questions was "manifestly arbitrary," since it let some students vault far ahead of higher-scoring peers purely by virtue of language choice rather than merit. It set aside the Madras High Court's order and directed that from 2019-20 the exam be conducted by the National Testing Agency with an improved, cross-checked translation process, with the English version remaining authoritative in case of ambiguity.
Courts will intervene to correct unfairness in examinations, but the remedy must be proportionate and tied to actual harm (e.g., re-evaluating specific flawed questions) rather than a blanket, unverified bonus that itself creates a new unfair advantage for an entire group.
