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 moreA man named Bhagirath was killed in a field in Rajasthan in 1982, allegedly beaten and struck with a "kassi" (a digging tool) by a group of men during what the prosecution said was an unlawful assembly. The trial court convicted the accused of murder and rioting based mainly on the testimony of the tractor driver who claimed to have witnessed the attack, since the original complainant later turned hostile and could not identify the attackers. The Rajasthan High Court, however, acquitted all the accused, finding the surviving eyewitness testimony unreliable given the darkness of the night, the witness's own unnatural conduct in leaving the body and not reporting the incident, and unexplained inconsistencies about who else was present at the scene. The State of Rajasthan appealed this acquittal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the record and agreed with the High Court's reasoning: the case rested almost entirely on the tractor driver's identification, which was doubtful because the incident occurred in darkness, the accused were not standing in the tractor's light, and the witness's own behaviour afterward (driving straight home without reporting the murder) was inconsistent with normal human conduct. The Court also noted unexplained discrepancies about the identity of another supposed witness. Applying the well-established principle that in an appeal against acquittal, an appellate court should not overturn a High Court's view unless it is unreasonable or impossible, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's acquittal was "definitely a possible view" of the evidence. Finding no justification to disturb that view, the Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittal.
When a High Court acquits an accused after a trial court conviction, the Supreme Court will not reverse that acquittal merely because another view of the evidence was also possible: it will only interfere if the High Court's view was unreasonable, which gives acquittals a strong degree of finality once reached on appeal.
