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 moreThe appellant, a forest ranger, was convicted of murder and other offences after a confrontation with a group allegedly transporting stolen sandalwood, during which he fired his gun and a person died. The trial court convicted him of murder; the Madras High Court partly allowed his appeal but still convicted him of a lesser offence (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) along with related offences under the Arms Act and Tamil Nadu Forest Act. He appealed to the Supreme Court arguing he acted in self-defence while on duty.
The Supreme Court examined the facts against established tests for the right of private defence (citing precedents including Darshan Singh and Amjad Khan) and found that the appellant, as a forest officer confronted by an armed and aggressive group that could have caused him or his colleague death or grievous hurt, was entitled to use his weapon in self-defence. The Court found the prosecution had failed to prove its case, including that the appellant exceeded his right of private defence. It also held that his conviction under Section 203 IPC (for an unrelated evidentiary issue) was unsustainable for want of evidence. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of all charges, discharging his bail bonds.
A person who reasonably apprehends death or grievous hurt from an aggressive, armed group, even a public official acting in the course of duty, may lawfully use force, including a firearm, in self-defence, and courts will scrutinise whether the prosecution has actually proven that such force exceeded what was reasonably necessary.
