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 FIR was lodged in Pilibhit district, Uttar Pradesh in March 2001 alleging that a large group, led by a man seeking revenge after his wife lost a Gram Pradhan (village head) election, attacked a crusher where the complainant and his relatives were celebrating Holi, killing two people and injuring others with guns, country-made pistols, and bankas (sharp weapons). After a full trial, 34 accused were convicted of rioting, arson, and murder-related offences, and the trial court sentenced 12 of them to death. The Allahabad High Court confirmed the convictions but commuted the death sentences of all 12 to life imprisonment, finding the case did not meet the "rarest of rare" threshold. Both the State (seeking restoration of the death penalty) and the convicted accused (seeking acquittal) appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including eyewitness testimony and recoveries of weapons, and found no reason to disturb the High Court's findings on guilt. On sentence, applying the balancing test from Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab for when a death sentence is warranted, the Court held that although the incriminating circumstances clearly established guilt, the case did not show the kind of brutality or social menace that would place it in the "rarest of rare" category, and that there remained a reasonable prospect of the convicts' reform and rehabilitation. The Court accordingly upheld the High Court's decision to commute the death sentences to life imprisonment and dismissed both the State's appeals (seeking the death penalty) and the accused's appeals (seeking acquittal).
Even in serious multi-victim murder cases, Indian courts do not treat conviction alone as sufficient for a death sentence: they must separately weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances and rule out any reasonable possibility of reform before confirming capital punishment; absent that, life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence.
