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 moreThe National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), the statutory body that regulates teacher-training institutions across India, issued a Public Notice in September 2019 through its Member Secretary requiring all recognised Teacher Education Institutes (TEIs) to submit an annual Performance Appraisal Report (PAR), along with a processing fee. An association of NCTE-approved colleges challenged this notice, arguing that only the full Council, not the Member Secretary or the Executive Committee, had the power to demand such reports. A single judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the challenge, but a Division Bench of the High Court struck down the notice, holding there was no proof the Council itself had approved the specific proforma used.
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench had taken an unduly technical view of how a statutory regulator functions. It found that the Council, at its 48th General Body Meeting in February 2019, had already deliberated on and approved the shift from "annual renewal of recognition" to a Performance Appraisal Report system, and had specifically authorised the Executive Committee (through NCTE) to implement it via a proforma. The Executive Committee, acting through its Member Secretary, was therefore validly carrying out the Council's own decision when it issued the 2019 Public Notice. The Court also held that requiring accountability reports and a modest processing fee is an ordinary incidental power of any regulator overseeing institutions, and that courts exercising judicial review over statutory regulators should ask whether the regulator acted outside its mandate, not nitpick procedural formalities. The appeal was allowed and the High Court Division Bench's judgment was set aside.
Courts reviewing the actions of statutory regulators (like education, environmental, or financial regulators) should look at whether the regulator had the substantive power and stayed within its mandate, rather than striking down routine accountability measures on narrow technical grounds: effective regulation requires that regulators be able to demand reasonable compliance reporting from the institutions they oversee.
