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 moreIn December 1988, a road-rage dispute over right of way in Patiala between two accused (one a well-known cricketer, Navjot Singh Sidhu) and the deceased, Gurnam Singh, ended with Gurnam Singh dying after being pulled from his car and struck. The trial court acquitted both accused, finding the eyewitnesses untruthful and the medical cause of death unclear. The Punjab & Haryana High Court reversed this and convicted both men: the cricketer (A-1) for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the second accused (A-2) with the aid of common intention.
The Supreme Court set aside A-2's conviction entirely, holding there was no reliable evidence establishing his identity as the "clean shaven man" who was with A-1: the only link was testimony given seven years after the incident, with no test identification parade ever conducted. For A-1, the Court scrutinized the conflicting medical opinions (subdural haemorrhage versus sudden cardiac death) and found the High Court's conclusion that the head injury alone caused death was "pure conjecture," unsupported by evidence: the pathologist found no brain pathology at all. Since the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that A-1's single fist blow caused the death, his conviction for culpable homicide was also set aside; however, the Court found he had voluntarily caused hurt and convicted him instead under the lesser offence of Section 323 IPC, imposing only a fine of Rs.1,000 given the 30-year-old incident, absence of weapons, and lack of prior enmity.
A conviction for causing death requires the medical evidence to actually and reliably establish that the accused's specific act caused the death "beyond reasonable doubt", conflicting or inconclusive medical opinions cannot be resolved by guesswork, even when eyewitnesses are believed on other points.
