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 deceased, Shakeel ur Rehman, had a property sale dispute with co-accused Suraiya, and after a phone call summoning him to her residence, he went missing and was later found dead near Haridwar. The trial court convicted Suraiya and one other accused of murder but acquitted the appellants, Suraiya's son Rahil and husband Noor Ahmed, for lack of evidence. The High Court, on the State's appeal, reversed that acquittal and convicted the appellants too, relying substantially on telephone call records and a single cell-tower location (Nizamuddin) said to place Rahil near the scene.
The Supreme Court held that reliance on a single cell tower to fix a person's exact location is unsafe, since a tower's coverage area is broad and can only show a phone was somewhere within its range: unlike more precise methods such as cell triangulation using multiple towers. It found the telephonic exchanges between Rahil and the other acquitted accused did not by themselves establish a conspiracy to murder. The Court reiterated that in a criminal case the burden of proof always lies on the prosecution, and an adverse inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be drawn against an accused only after the prosecution has first proved the foundational incriminating circumstances, which had not happened here. It concluded the High Court was wrong to reverse the acquittal on mere surmises, set aside the conviction, and allowed the appeal.
Single-tower cell phone location evidence is inherently imprecise and cannot alone establish a person's presence at a crime scene "beyond doubt"; courts cannot shift the burden of proof onto an accused to explain circumstances unless the prosecution has first independently proved the key incriminating facts.
