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 2009, two men stabbed the victim multiple times with knives (including in the chest and abdomen) following prior enmity, causing life-threatening injuries; two other accused attacked him with sticks. The trial court convicted the two knife-wielding accused under Sections 307, 324 and 326 IPC and sentenced them to three years' rigorous imprisonment plus a modest fine, a conviction upheld on first appeal. Years later, while a further revision was pending before the Madras High Court, the victim died in an unrelated incident, and the accused, without disputing their guilt, offered to pay Rs. 50,000 each to the victim's widow (the appellant here) in exchange for leniency. The High Court accepted this, confirming the conviction but slashing the sentence to time already served (about two months) while raising the fine to Rs. 1,00,000 total; the victim's widow appealed this dramatic sentence reduction to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Madras High Court had acted "in complete defiance of the law," reducing a serious violent crime's sentence to time-served based on irrelevant considerations, the mere passage of time and the accused's offer of monetary payment, without any reasoned application of judicial mind. It reaffirmed established sentencing principles: punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, mere lapse of time is not by itself a mitigating factor, and compensation to a victim is restitutory only and can never substitute for a punitive sentence, accepting money in exchange for leniency risks becoming impermissible "blood money." The Court laid down four factors trial and appellate courts must weigh in sentencing: proportionality, the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence's impact on society, and a fair balance of aggravating and mitigating factors. Finding the trial court's original three-year sentence (well below the ten-year maximum for Section 307) was already lenient and correctly reasoned, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the original conviction and sentence, and directed the accused to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining term.
Courts cannot reduce a serious criminal sentence merely because time has passed or because the accused offers to pay the victim's family money: compensation to a victim is an addition to punishment, never a substitute for it, and sentences for violent crimes must remain proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
