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 moreMukesh, one of the convicts in the December 2012 Delhi gang-rape and murder case, was sentenced to death by the trial court, with the conviction and sentence upheld by the Delhi High Court and then by the Supreme Court in its final judgment of 05.05.2017. He filed this review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution, raising a series of grounds: alleged illegal detention and delayed production before a magistrate, alleged coercion into accepting a police-appointed advocate, alleged torture to extract his Section 313 statement, a claim he lacked a bus driving licence and could not have driven the bus, call-record evidence allegedly placing him elsewhere, and challenges to the dying declarations and recovery evidence.
The Court reiterated the narrow scope of review jurisdiction in criminal matters: permissible only for an error apparent on the face of the record, not as a rehearing of the appeal or a chance to reargue points already considered. Going through each ground raised, the Court found that all of them (the arrest circumstances, choice of counsel, torture allegations, driving-licence point, call records, and the three dying declarations) had already been examined and rejected in the original 05.05.2017 judgment, and that the petitioner was merely repeating arguments rather than pointing to any new or overlooked material. Finding no glaring omission or patent error warranting review, the Court held the review petition did not disclose any ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and dismissed it, leaving the conviction and death sentence undisturbed.
A review petition before the Supreme Court is not a second appeal: it succeeds only on a narrow showing of a patent error apparent on the record or genuinely new evidence, and simply re-presenting arguments that were already considered and rejected at the appeal stage will not reopen a final judgment, even in a capital case.
