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 appellant, convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, had spent nearly 20 years in custody and sought premature release under the Maharashtra government's 2010 remission guidelines. The government classified his crime under a category requiring 24 years of incarceration before release (murder committed jointly with premeditation), but the appellant argued his case actually fell under a different clause covering premeditated murder "arising out of family prestige," which required only 22 years.
The Supreme Court examined the facts: the appellant and a co-accused had attacked the victim because the victim was in a relationship with the appellant's sister, which the family considered dishonorable. The Court agreed this squarely fit the "family prestige" category (Clause 3(b)) rather than the general premeditated-murder category the government had applied, meaning the appellant should have been eligible for release after about 22 years, not 24. Since the appellant had already served nearly 22 years (just short of three months) and was only around 18 years old at the time of the crime, the Court held that the remaining three months in custody would serve no meaningful purpose for either the victim's family or the appellant's rehabilitation, and ordered his immediate release.
When applying remission and premature-release policies, the government must correctly classify the true motive and nature of the original offence: an incorrect classification can keep a person incarcerated longer than the law's own guidelines require, and courts will step in to correct such errors, especially where release is being delayed by only a technical, immaterial gap.
