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 moreNearly 70 years after Mahatma Gandhi's assassination in 1948, for which Nathuram Godse and others were tried, convicted, and (in Godse's case) executed, with the conviction upheld on appeal by the Punjab High Court in 1949, the petitioner, describing himself as an engineer, management graduate, and researcher, approached the Delhi High Court in 2016 seeking to reopen the case. He argued that a "fourth bullet" may have been fired (suggesting a second, unidentified assailant) and that the 1969 Kapur Commission's findings implicating V.D. Savarkar's group in the conspiracy should be reviewed or a new commission set up. The High Court declined to entertain the petition, and the petitioner's special leave petition came before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, with the assistance of a court-appointed Amicus Curiae who examined the trial record and museum exhibits, held that the evidence of six eyewitnesses, the inquest report, and physical evidence (two spent bullets and a third found later, consistent with three cartridge cases) all supported only three shots being fired, with no basis for the petitioner's "fourth bullet"/second-assailant theory. On the Kapur Commission, the Court held that a commission of inquiry's findings are purely recommendatory, have no binding legal force, and cannot overturn a criminal court's acquittal (Savarkar had been acquitted at trial), so there was no legal basis to disturb or review the Commission's report. The Court held that long-concluded criminal convictions, especially where the convicted persons have since died or completed their sentences, should not be reopened based on later academic research or speculation, and that courts should not allow their jurisdiction to be used to reignite settled historical controversies. Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it.
Courts will not reopen a criminal case that was finally decided decades ago merely because someone raises new research, speculation, or a differing historical interpretation, and the findings of a government commission of inquiry (such as the Kapur Commission) are only recommendatory and have no power to overturn a court's judgment, including an acquittal.
