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 was convicted of murder, rape (Section 376(2)(f)), and wrongful confinement (Section 342) of a young girl, and the trial court sentenced him to death for the murder, with the High Court confirming both the conviction and the death sentence. His first Special Leave Petition against that High Court judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court in a single word ("Dismissed") without any reasons, prompting him to file this review petition arguing that death-sentence cases should never be dismissed without recorded reasons.
The Supreme Court agreed that special leave petitions in death sentence cases should not be dismissed in limine without reasons, given the gravity and irreversibility of capital punishment, and it allowed the review petition, recalling its earlier one-word dismissal and restoring the original Special Leave Petition for a full hearing. Having restored and then fully heard the matter (now numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 1440 of 2018), the Court examined the circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, recovery of the victim's body and belongings from the appellant's house, and DNA/post-mortem evidence, and upheld the conviction as proven beyond reasonable doubt. On sentence, however, it held the case did not meet the "rarest of rare" threshold required for the death penalty, given the appellant's age (over 60) and clean prior record, and commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment with a 20-year minimum before he could seek remission.
Dismissing a death-penalty case without giving any reasons is itself a legal error that can be corrected on review, and even after a conviction for a serious crime is upheld, the "rarest of rare" standard for imposing death as punishment is applied strictly, with factors like the convict's age and clean record weighed before confirming a death sentence.
