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 moreAt a court complex in Barnala, Punjab, a group of people connected to the accused in a rape-and-murder case attacked relatives and witnesses of the victim who had come for a related hearing. The appellant, Manjit Singh, allegedly exhorted the attackers to "take revenge," and the mob, armed with kirpans (swords) and a ghop (a bladed farm tool), assaulted four people, one of whom, Dalip Singh, later died of his injuries. The trial court convicted the accused of rioting, murder (with the aid of the "common object" provision, Section 149 IPC), and causing grievous hurt, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the convictions; Manjit Singh then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the legal test for an "unlawful assembly" under Section 149 IPC, which makes every member of a group of five or more sharing a "common object" liable for any offence committed in pursuit of that object, even if they did not personally strike the fatal blow, while cautioning that this must not be stretched to convict mere bystanders who did not share the common purpose. Applying this, the Court found the evidence clearly showed the accused had gathered with weapons, that Manjit Singh's own exhortation to "avenge" the earlier case revealed the shared motive, and that multiple accused delivered coordinated, forceful blows on different victims, including the repeated fatal blows to the deceased's head, showing the group acted in concert with a shared objective to cause serious harm. The Court distinguished a precedent the defence relied on (a sudden, spur-of-the-moment single-person attack that was downgraded from murder to culpable homicide) as inapplicable, since this attack was a premeditated group assault with weapons. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the convictions, and the accused were directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remainder of their sentences.
Under Indian criminal law, being part of an armed group that attacks someone can make a person criminally liable for the group's most serious outcome (such as a resulting death), even if that specific person did not land the fatal blow, provided the prosecution proves the group shared a common purpose to cause the harm, as shown through their coordinated conduct, weapons, and behaviour before and during the attack.
