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 moreSatish Kumar and a co-accused, Dhajja Ram, were convicted of murdering a man named Shamsher with lathi (stick) blows after objecting to a woman's relationship across different community sub-groups ("gotras"). The trial court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court both convicted Satish Kumar of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, along with related offences of criminal intimidation and causing hurt, based on the deceased's dying declaration and eyewitness testimony. Satish Kumar appealed only the murder conviction (not the other offences) to the Supreme Court, while his co-accused did not appeal and was reportedly released on remission.
The Supreme Court accepted the lower courts' findings on the appellant's involvement in the assault but scrutinised whether the injuries proved he intended to inflict harm "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death": the specific legal threshold required for a murder conviction under this clause of the law. It found real inconsistencies: the dying declaration and initial medical report described only lathi blows to the limbs and waist, with no mention of any head injury, yet the post-mortem attributed death to a head injury, and the doctor's own cross-examination cast doubt on whether that head injury alone was necessarily fatal. Giving the appellant the benefit of this doubt, the Court downgraded his conviction from murder (Section 302) to the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I), while keeping his other convictions intact, and since he had already served years in custody before being released on bail, sentenced him only to the time already served.
A murder conviction requires the prosecution to prove, without real contradiction, that the specific injury inflicted was by itself sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; genuine gaps or contradictions between a dying declaration, medical reports, and autopsy findings on this point can reduce a murder charge to the lesser offence of culpable homicide.
