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 moreOfficers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted a car near Hoshiarpur and recovered about 4 kg of heroin concealed in its door, leading to the arrest of two occupants, Raj Kumar and Surinder Pal Singh. During investigation, statements recorded from these two co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act named the appellant, Surinder Kumar Khanna, as having supplied the drugs for onward delivery, and he was arrested and tried along with them. The trial court convicted all three, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld Khanna's conviction (reducing his sentence to 10 years), relying essentially on the co-accused's statements naming him, since no independent evidence directly linked him to the recovered heroin.
The Supreme Court held that even assuming the co-accused's statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were admissible, settled law (going back to Kashmira Singh and the Constitution Bench ruling in Hari Charan Kurmi) establishes that a co-accused's confession/statement is a weak type of evidence that can only be used to lend assurance to other substantive evidence against an accused: it cannot itself form the sole basis of conviction. Since the prosecution admitted there was no other material (not even call records) independently linking Khanna to the crime, and the only "evidence" against him was the co-accused's statements, the Court found his conviction could not stand on that basis alone. It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered Khanna's acquittal and immediate release (unless wanted in another case).
A person cannot be convicted of a crime solely on the strength of what a co-accused says about them: such statements can only support other independent evidence, never substitute for it; prosecutors must produce direct or corroborative evidence tying each accused to the offence.
