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 was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court, and the conviction and death sentence were confirmed by the Bombay High Court, for the abduction, rape and murder of a five-year-old girl who had gone missing from outside her home while her parents were at work. The victim was later found dead with injuries, including laceration of the vagina and anus, indicating sexual assault, and the appellant was convicted under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (including murder and kidnapping) together with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The appeal to the Supreme Court challenged both the conviction and, specifically, the appropriateness of the death sentence.
The Supreme Court found that while the trial court had imposed the death penalty, it had failed to properly conduct the mandatory sentencing hearing under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure: it did not specifically inform the accused that death was being considered, did not give him a real opportunity to place mitigating circumstances on record, and made no independent effort to elicit facts relevant to whether reform was possible or whether the accused would remain a continuing threat to society. Relying on precedent (including Dagdu and Santa Singh), the Court held that this denial of an effective sentencing hearing was itself a ground to set aside the death sentence, and separately found that, despite the crime's heinous and barbaric nature, it did not fall within the narrow "rarest of rare" category required for capital punishment. The Court therefore modified the sentence from death to life imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant's natural life, with no remission permitted, allowing the appeals only to that extent (the conviction itself was not disturbed).
Even in the most horrific crimes, a court must follow the mandatory procedure of giving the accused a genuine, meaningful hearing specifically on sentencing before imposing the death penalty: failure to do so, combined with the case not meeting the strict "rarest of rare" standard, can result in the death sentence being replaced with life imprisonment without remission.
