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 April 1998, a seven-year-old girl, Kamala, went missing from a night-long prayer gathering (Jaagran) in Rajasthan and was later found raped and murdered. The appellant was tried, convicted under Sections 302 and 376 IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment plus a fixed-term sentence; the Rajasthan High Court dismissed his appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant raised a claim that he was a juvenile (under 18) on the date of the offence and so entitled to protection under the Juvenile Justice Act, relying on a medical board's age estimate.
The Supreme Court examined the medical board's report, which estimated the appellant's age at "about" 33 years at the time of examination (around 14 years after the offence), spanning a range of 30 to 36 years. Applying Rule 12(3)(b) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, which allows courts to give the benefit of the doubt by fixing age on the lower side by up to one year when exact assessment isn't possible, the Court found that even taking the upper end of the estimated range, the appellant would have been about 17 years 2 months old at the time of the offence, making him a juvenile. The Court affirmed the conviction for rape and murder as factually correct, but set aside the sentence (life imprisonment and the other sentence) because the appellant was legally a juvenile at the time, directing he be released from prison (having already served about 14 years) unless wanted in any other case.
Even where a serious crime is proved, a convict who was under 18 years old at the time of the offence is legally entitled to juvenile-justice protection from adult sentencing, and when medical age evidence is uncertain, courts must apply the statutory benefit-of-doubt margin in the accused's favour.
