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 appellants (Rajendra and three others) were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 IPC for allegedly gang-raping the complainant near Sanjay Colony on 7 April 1998, based on an FIR lodged by her over three months later, on 31 July 1998. The Uttarakhand High Court upheld the conviction, sentencing each accused to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellants challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing there was no supporting medical or DNA evidence and that the prolonged, unexplained delay in filing the FIR undermined the prosecutrix's sole testimony.
The Supreme Court held that convicting solely on the prosecutrix's testimony was unsafe in this case given the roughly seven-month delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of any medical evidence or injury records corroborating the incident, and the lack of any DNA test to establish paternity of a child allegedly born from the incident. Relying on its precedent in a similar case (Vijayan), the Court found that where a prosecutrix delays reporting rape for several months and no medical or forensic corroboration exists, convicting solely on her testimony leaves the accused effectively defenceless. The Court concluded the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and directed the appellants' release if not held for any other offence.
While the sole testimony of a survivor can in principle sustain a conviction, courts require some corroborating evidence or a credible explanation for a lengthy, unexplained delay in reporting before relying on that testimony alone: this protects both genuine survivors' credibility and an accused's right to a fair trial.
