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 under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act for possessing heroin in a quantity far above the "commercial quantity" threshold and was sentenced by the trial court to 18 years' rigorous imprisonment (reduced to 16 years by the Calcutta High Court). The minimum sentence under Section 21(c) is 10 years, and the appellant argued that a court can only impose a sentence above that statutory minimum if one of the specific aggravating factors listed in Section 32B(a)-(f) of the Act (such as use of violence, holding public office, involving minors, etc.) is shown to exist, none of which applied to him.
The Supreme Court held that Section 32B's listed factors (clauses (a) to (f)) are not an exhaustive or mandatory checklist: the statutory language ("in addition to such factors as it may deem fit") makes clear that a court retains discretion to consider any other relevant factor, such as the sheer quantity of drugs recovered, when deciding to impose a sentence above the minimum. Since the actual heroin recovered (609.6 grams) was well above the commercial-quantity threshold, the Court held that imposing a sentence higher than the 10-year minimum was justified on that basis alone, even without reference to clauses (a)-(f). However, taking into account that the appellant was found by the High Court to be merely a courier/carrier, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence further from 16 years to 12 years rigorous imprisonment, partly allowing the appeal.
Under the NDPS Act, a court is not restricted to the specific list of aggravating factors in Section 32B when deciding to impose a sentence above the statutory minimum: the quantity of drugs involved, among other case-specific factors, can by itself justify a higher sentence, but sentencing courts must still proportion punishment, including giving weight to a person's more limited role (e.g., as a mere carrier) in the offence.
