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 moreA homoeopathy medical college challenged, along with several connected appeals, a Patna High Court Division Bench ruling that the Central Government (not just the Central Council of Homoeopathy, the statutory expert body) could itself appoint a team of medical inspectors to inspect colleges before granting permission for admissions, relying on Regulation 3(5) of the 2013 Minimum Standards Regulations. The High Court's Single Bench had earlier taken the opposite view, holding only the Central Council could appoint such inspectors.
The Supreme Court examined Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Act of 1973, which in clear terms give the Central Council of Homoeopathy (CCH), not the Central Government, the exclusive power to appoint medical inspectors and visitors, with the Central Government's role being only supervisory (acting on the Council's recommendations). The Court held that Regulation 3(5), which merely allows the Government or CCH to order random inspections on a complaint or as otherwise necessary, does not itself confer any power to appoint who conducts those inspections: that remains governed by Section 17 of the Act, and a regulation cannot override the parent statute. The Division Bench of the High Court had therefore erred in holding the Central Government could appoint its own team of inspectors. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Division Bench's ruling, and restored the Single Bench's judgment that only CCH can appoint inspectors, with no order as to costs.
When a statute vests a specific power (such as appointing inspectors) exclusively in an expert regulatory body, a subordinate regulation cannot be read to shift that power to the government: a regulation must always be interpreted consistently with, and subordinate to, the law under which it was made.
