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 Asharfi was convicted by a trial court of offences including rape (Section 376(2)(g) IPC) and an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising from an incident on the night of 8/9 December 1995 in which he and a co-accused allegedly forced entry into a house and raped the complainant's wife. The Allahabad High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence (10 years for rape, life imprisonment under the SC/ST Act). The appellant, through an amicus curiae since no one appeared for the State, appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the rape conviction and sentence, finding the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, based on the victim's and an eyewitness's testimony plus medical evidence, did not warrant interference. However, it set aside the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, holding that under the pre-2016 (unamended) version of that provision, applicable since the offence occurred in 1995, a conviction required proof that the offence was committed specifically "on the ground that" the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste, which is a higher standard than the post-2016 amendment's "knowledge" standard. Since the evidence did not establish this caste-based motive/intention, that part of the conviction and the life sentence attached to it could not be sustained. The appeal was partly allowed, and since the appellant had already served over ten years, he was ordered released forthwith (unless wanted in any other case).
The specific legal standard for convicting someone under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act changed in 2016, before the amendment, prosecutors had to prove the crime was committed specifically because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste/Tribe (a tougher bar), not merely that the accused knew of the victim's caste; which version of the law applies depends on when the offence occurred, not when the case is decided.
