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 of murdering his wife and of cruelty under Section 498A IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment. During trial, the judge declined to record the evidence of the couple's two young children (aged eight and six, witnesses to events around their mother's death) after they said they did not personally know the judge or the lawyers present, treating this as proof the children were incapable of testifying. The Madras High Court found this reasoning erroneous and remanded the case for the trial court to properly and objectively assess whether the children could testify and, if so, to record their evidence with an opportunity for the accused to cross-examine them; the accused then appealed this remand order to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a child witness's inability to identify the judge or lawyers by name or role is not a valid basis to exclude their testimony altogether: competency to testify depends on whether the child can understand and answer questions rationally, not on courtroom-specific knowledge. Relying on its own precedent (State of Maharashtra v. Bandu alias Daulat), the Court held that appellate courts have wide remedial powers, including ordering a fresh (de novo) examination of witnesses, to prevent a miscarriage of justice without needing to order a complete retrial. The Court directed that the children's evidence be recorded in a child-friendly environment, with the accused retaining full rights to cross-examine them, and dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in challenging the High Court's remand order.
A child's testimony cannot be thrown out simply because the child does not recognize courtroom officials by name: courts must assess a child witness's actual capacity to understand and truthfully answer questions, and appellate courts can order such evidence be properly (re-)recorded rather than losing it altogether on a technicality.
