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, a Deputy Director at the Rajasthan State Forensic Science Laboratory, had given a forensic opinion in the Jessica Lal murder trial about two fired cartridge cases. At trial he gave a court-prompted answer that the two cartridges appeared to have been fired from different firearms, after earlier saying he could give no definite opinion without the actual weapon. The Delhi High Court, while deciding the appeal against the acquittal of the accused, took suo motu notice under Section 340 CrPC and directed its Registrar General to file a perjury complaint against him under Section 193 IPC, believing his oral testimony contradicted his written report.
The Supreme Court held that the appellant's trial testimony was not actually inconsistent with his written report: in both, he maintained that a truly definite opinion required examining the suspected firearm itself, which was never recovered. His answer about "two different firearms" was a qualified response to a specific court question, not a voluntary reversal of position to favour the accused. The Court reiterated that expert witnesses must be given latitude since their evidence is only advisory, and that mere rejection or an inconclusive opinion does not by itself amount to perjury or justify proceedings under Section 340 CrPC. It noted that this Court's own earlier judgment in the main Jessica Lal appeal had already described this very testimony as "inconclusive" rather than dishonest. Consequently, the High Court's Section 340 proceedings against the appellant were quashed and the appeals allowed.
An expert witness who honestly flags the limits of their opinion (e.g., needing certain physical evidence for a definite conclusion) cannot be prosecuted for perjury merely because their testimony is inconclusive or appears to shift under court questioning: perjury requires actual dishonest or deliberate falsehood, not a cautious, qualified professional opinion.
