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 of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a 2-year-old girl in Jalna, Maharashtra, after being seen drunk and distributing chocolates to children shortly before the child went missing. Police broke into his locked house and found the unconscious, gravely injured child under his bed; she died shortly after. The trial court convicted him based on circumstantial evidence (his presence with the victim behind doors locked from both sides, medical evidence of rape, recovered blood-stained clothing, and his failure to explain the incriminating circumstances) and sentenced him to death, a decision the Bombay High Court confirmed on reference. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against both conviction and sentence.
All three judges unanimously upheld the conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence formed a complete and unbroken chain pointing only to the appellant's guilt. However, the bench split on sentencing: Justices Nariman and Surya Kant (forming the majority) held this was a "rarest of the rare" case warranting the death penalty, citing the extreme brutality against a defenceless toddler, the calculated manner in which the appellant locked himself in to avoid detection, and his complete lack of remorse, and therefore dismissed the appeals and affirmed the death sentence. Justice R. Subhash Reddy, in a separate opinion, agreed with the conviction but dissented on sentence, reasoning that the appellant was intoxicated at the time, was only 25 years old, there was no evidence ruling out the possibility of reform, and the conviction rested on circumstantial rather than direct evidence: he would have commuted the sentence to life imprisonment without remission. By majority (2:1), the Supreme Court's operative order confirmed the conviction and affirmed the death sentence.
In death penalty cases, Indian courts apply a structured "rarest of the rare" test weighing aggravating factors (brutality, vulnerability of the victim, lack of remorse, deliberate concealment) against mitigating factors (age, intoxication, possibility of reform, nature of evidence), and even among senior judges of the same court, reasonable and sincere disagreement on where that balance tips can result in split opinions on sentence, with the majority view prevailing as the Court's final order.
