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 petitioner, Akshay Kumar Singh, was the bus helper convicted and sentenced to death (along with co-accused) for the gang-rape and murder of a young woman on a moving bus in Delhi in December 2012. His conviction and death sentence had been confirmed by the Supreme Court in its 5 May 2017 judgment in Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi). He filed this review petition seeking to reopen that judgment, raising grounds including alleged flaws in investigation and dying-declaration evidence, his plea of alibi, challenges to DNA and bite-mark evidence, arguments against capital punishment generally, and even arguments about pollution levels in Delhi making the death penalty unnecessary.
The Supreme Court reiterated that review jurisdiction in criminal matters under Article 137 and the Supreme Court Rules is extremely narrow, limited only to an "error apparent on the face of the record", and is not a re-hearing or re-appreciation of evidence. The Court found that nearly all the grounds raised were identical to those already considered and rejected in the co-accused's earlier review petitions (Mukesh v. State and Vinay Sharma v. State, both 2018). It went through each specific ground, dying declarations, the alibi defence, DNA/bite-mark evidence, CCTV footage, bus identification, and the "rarest of rare" finding justifying death penalty, and found no error apparent on the face of the record in any of them, expressly noting some grounds (such as the "Kalyug"/pollution argument) were without merit. The review petition was accordingly dismissed, and the death sentence stood confirmed.
A review petition is not a second appeal: it cannot be used to re-argue the merits of a case or re-litigate evidence already considered; it succeeds only where there is a glaring, demonstrable error on the face of the record, and repeating the same arguments already rejected for co-accused will not succeed.
