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 moreIn June 2003, a gang attacked a family's hut in Nashik district, robbed them, and brutally murdered five family members and raped one woman. Six men from a nomadic tribe were arrested, tried, and convicted; the trial court sentenced all six to death, and the Bombay High Court confirmed the death sentence for three and commuted it to life imprisonment for the other three. The Supreme Court first decided the appeals in 2009 (upholding/enhancing some sentences), but in 2018 a three-judge bench recalled that 2009 judgment entirely after finding some accused had not been given a hearing, and ordered the case re-heard from scratch, which is what this March 2019 judgment resolves.
On fresh hearing, the Supreme Court found serious, uncured flaws in the investigation and identification evidence: the test identification parades of the accused were held after unexplained long delays (up to 50 days or more after the offence), the surviving eyewitness's identification in court contradicted her own earlier statements and the TIP record, and, most critically, four other named suspects identified by an injured eyewitness within two days of the crime were never investigated or arrested at all. The Court held the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the unexplained lapses amounted to a violation of the accused's fundamental rights under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. It acquitted all the accused (most of whom, including one later found to be a juvenile, had spent roughly 16 years in jail, largely under sentence of death), ordered their immediate release, and, invoking Article 142, directed the State to pay each accused Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for wrongful incarceration. It separately ordered fresh investigation into the four never-pursued suspects and directed the State to identify and take departmental action against the officials responsible for the botched investigation.
A criminal conviction, especially one carrying the death penalty, cannot stand on a shoddy or incomplete investigation: unexplained delay in identification parades and ignoring other identified suspects can by itself create reasonable doubt large enough to acquit; and courts can order compensation and accountability for officials when innocent people are wrongly jailed for years as a result.
