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 Pooranmal and a co-accused, Ladu Lal, were convicted by a Rajasthan trial court in 2012 for the 2010 murder of Ladu Lal's wife, Aruna, and sentenced to life imprisonment; the Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction in 2018. Unlike Ladu Lal, whose own Supreme Court appeal was already dismissed, Pooranmal could not appeal earlier due to poverty and lack of legal aid, and only reached the Supreme Court through legal aid after a delay of 2,749 days, which the Court condoned given the case's distinguishing facts. The prosecution's case against Pooranmal rested purely on circumstantial evidence: mobile call records showing frequent contact with Ladu Lal around the time of the murder, recovery of a blood-stained shirt matching the victim's blood group, and recovery of Rs. 46,000 allegedly paid to him for committing the murder.
The Supreme Court acquitted Pooranmal, holding the prosecution failed to establish a complete, unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence as required under the settled test from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. Crucially, the call detail records, the most significant link tying Pooranmal to the crime, were held inadmissible because the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act (now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) was never produced, applying the binding precedents in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal that such a certificate is a mandatory precondition for admitting electronic evidence, not curable by oral testimony. The Court also found discrepancies and weaknesses in the evidence regarding the recovered currency notes and blood-stained shirt. With the circumstantial chain broken, the conviction could not stand, and the Court noted that being poor and unable to previously access legal aid does not bar a genuinely meritorious appeal from being heard.
Electronic evidence such as call detail records cannot be used to convict someone unless accompanied by the mandatory Section 65-B (now Section 63 BSA) certificate. Courts cannot substitute oral testimony for this certificate; and circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence before a conviction can be sustained.
