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 early hours of 20.10.2009, a police patrol in Himachal Pradesh signalled a car to stop; its driver fled into an orchard and was never caught at the scene. A search of the car turned up 14.75 kg of charas, along with the car's registration papers (in a third party's name) and a bank passbook belonging to the appellant, Khekh Ram. Based mainly on this passbook and the partial, inconsistent identification testimony of two patrol members who did not know the appellant beforehand, Khekh Ram was arrested a day later and tried under the NDPS Act. The Trial Court acquitted him, but the Himachal Pradesh High Court reversed the acquittal on appeal and sentenced him to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment.
The Supreme Court held that identification of the appellant as the fleeing driver was the crux of the case, since the search and seizure happened in his absence. The two prosecution witnesses who claimed to identify him admittedly did not know him before the incident, saw him only briefly from a distance or from behind in poor light, and no test identification parade was ever held. The photographs the prosecution relied on to corroborate the seizure bore no date, or a date years earlier than the seizure, undermining their credibility. The Court held that mere recovery of the appellant's passbook from the vehicle, without reliable identification evidence, could not by itself prove he was the driver in conscious possession of the contraband; suspicion, however strong, is not proof. Finding the Trial Court's view of acquittal reasonable and the High Court's reversal unjustified, the Supreme Court restored the acquittal, allowed the appeal, and separately directed a police inquiry into the shoddy investigation in the case.
A conviction cannot rest on the mere recovery of an accused's personal item at a crime scene when there is no reliable, corroborated identification placing him there: in criminal cases, especially those carrying severe punishment, the prosecution's evidence must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not merely raise suspicion.
