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 the 2006 Khairlanji massacre in Maharashtra, a Dalit (Scheduled Caste) woman, Surekha Bhotmange, and her three children were dragged from their home by a mob of around 40 villagers and brutally beaten to death after Surekha had earlier identified persons who assaulted a family friend; their bodies were dumped in a canal. After a flawed initial local investigation, the case was transferred to the CBI, and the Special Court convicted several accused, sentencing some to death and others to life imprisonment, while acquitting a few. The Bombay High Court upheld most convictions but commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment on condition of actual imprisonment for at least 25 years, finding the case did not meet the "rarest of rare" threshold for the death penalty since the motive was found to be revenge over a prior assault rather than caste-based hatred per se. Both the CBI (challenging the commutation) and the convicts (challenging their convictions) cross-appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court applied the "rarest of rare" doctrine from Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh, and upheld the High Court's view that the case, while undoubtedly gruesome, did not meet the threshold justifying a mandatory death sentence, noting the High Court had properly balanced aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It approved the High Court's use of the special "fixed-term" sentencing device from Swamy Shraddananda and Union of India v. V. Sriharan (requiring at least 25 years' actual imprisonment without ordinary remission, as an alternative to death) as a legally valid middle path. On the convicts' cross-appeals, the Court rejected arguments of unreliable eyewitnesses, delay in lodging the FIR, and inconsistency between medical and ocular evidence, finding the eyewitness testimony credible, the medical evidence (multiple ante-mortem injuries on vital body parts) consistent with homicidal death, and the FIR delay adequately explained by the circumstances. Both sets of appeals, the CBI's and the convicts', were dismissed, affirming the convictions and the life sentences with a minimum 25-year actual imprisonment condition.
Even in a horrific multiple-murder case, the "rarest of rare" standard for imposing the death penalty is applied strictly by examining both the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the offenders: courts can and do substitute death sentences with a fixed-term life sentence (such as a minimum of 25 years without remission) as a constitutionally valid middle ground between ordinary life imprisonment and execution.
