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 Tamil Nadu Legislature passed a number of Bills between 2020 and 2023, but the Governor of Tamil Nadu sat on them without taking any action for years. After the State filed this writ petition, the Governor withheld assent to 10 Bills and reserved 2 others for the President's consideration. The State Legislature then re-passed the 10 Bills unchanged and sent them back for assent under the Constitution's procedure (the first proviso to Article 200), but instead of assenting, the Governor this time reserved all 10 re-passed Bills for the President's consideration, citing alleged conflicts with central laws. The President later withheld assent to several of these Bills. The State argued this entire sequence of delay and reservation was unconstitutional and asked the Supreme Court to declare the Bills validly assented to.
In a lengthy, landmark judgment (414 pages), the Supreme Court held that once a Bill is returned by the Governor under the first proviso to Article 200 and is re-passed by the State Legislature without change, the Governor has no further discretion. He cannot reserve it for the President a second time and must grant assent. The Court traced the constitutional history of Article 200 in detail and held that the Governor, as a rule, must act on the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, with narrow discretionary exceptions; it also fixed a three-month outer limit for the President to decide on Bills reserved for consideration, and held that unreasoned or unduly delayed withholding of assent by either the Governor or the President is subject to judicial review. Because the Governor's second reservation of the 10 re-passed Bills was found unconstitutional and the President's resulting action on them was therefore void, the Court used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to declare all 10 Bills deemed to have received assent on the date they were re-presented to the Governor (18 November 2023).
Constitutional office-holders like Governors and the President do not have unlimited or indefinite discretion to sit on or repeatedly block laws passed by an elected legislature: the Constitution expects them to act within a reasonable time and largely in line with ministerial advice, and courts can step in and even deem a Bill "assented to" when that constitutional process is deliberately obstructed.
