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 moreAn elderly lawyer and his wife died after their hut caught fire in November 2016 near Patna, and the couple's younger son and daughter-in-law were accused of murdering them over a long-standing land/property dispute, allegedly motivated by the son's grievance over not receiving his share of ancestral property. The Trial Court convicted the accused largely on the strength of alleged dying declarations, motive evidence, and witness testimony, but the High Court acquitted them, finding the evidence unreliable. The elder son of the deceased couple (the appellant here) challenged the acquittal before the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court had ignored strong dying-declaration evidence.
The Supreme Court found the investigation "grossly deficient": no scene mahazar was drawn up, no forensic examination was conducted at the crime scene, no independent witnesses were examined, the cause of the fire was never properly investigated, and there was unexplained delay in registering the FIR despite the police having earlier information. The Court also found that none of the incriminating circumstances, including the alleged dying declarations and motive evidence, had been properly put to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a mandatory safeguard, relying on its own recent precedent on this point. Given these fundamental lapses, and applying the principle that criminal guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt (not merely "maybe true" but "must be true"), the Court held the High Court's acquittal did not warrant interference and dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal.
A conviction cannot survive on suspicion, community perception, or a rushed investigation. The prosecution must meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard through properly gathered evidence and a fair trial process, including ensuring every incriminating fact is actually put to the accused for their response; sloppy investigation can let a genuinely guilty person go free just as easily as it can wrongly punish an innocent one.
